Conference Proceedings 2020

Page 1

Proceedings of the Digital Living Lab Days Conference 2020 Connecting people and technologies towards a citizen-centered digital future.

European Network of Living Labs ENoLL Office Pleinlaan 9 1050 Brussels

This report is a compilation of the papers presented between the 2nd and 4th of September 2020, online, as part of the Digital Living Lab Days conference. The publications here contained a result of the double-blind review and evaluation procedure between April and June of 2020 as part of the “Call for papers” responding to the theme of the Digital Living Lab Days 2020 conference: “Connecting people and technologies towards a citizen-centered digital future” The “Call for papers” encouraged contributions from four different paper categories to stimulate a diverse participation of actors: ‘Full Research Papers’ providing consolidated scientific research, ‘Practitioners Presentations’ showing case studies from a practitioner perspective, ‘Research in Progress papers’ presenting relevant preliminary results and Doctoral Consortium Papers offering PhD students to elaborate on their work.

Acknowledgments This publication is a collaborative effort of several individuals representing the European Network of Living Labs and its network members.

ISBN (e-book): 9789464078923 ©2020 ENoLL – European Network of Living Labs All rights reserved

Review panel Chair Dr. Dimitri Schuurman. imec

Steering committee Top contribution chair: Dr. Dimitri Schuurman. imec

Health & Environment chairs: Prof. Dr. An Jacobs. imec - Vrije Universiteit Brussel Dr. Evdokimos Konstantinidis. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Public Sector Innovation chairs: Mathias Van Compernolle. UGent Eveline Vlassenroot. UGent

Urban & Societal challenges chairs: Prof. Dr. Pieter Ballon. Vrije Universiteit Brussel Carina Veeckman. imec – Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Theoretical & Methodological challenges chairs: Prof. Dr. Wendy Van den Broeck. imec – Vrije Universiteit Brussel Dr. Dimitri Schuurman. imec

Tools & technologies for citizen-centric innovation chairs: Dr. Klaas Bombeke. Imec - UGent Prof. Dr. An Jacobs. imec - Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Doctoral Consortium chairs: Dr. Bas Baccarne. UGent Dr. Brigitte Trousse. Inria, University Côte d’Azur


Evaluation committee Bas Baccarne – Ugent Pieter Ballon – Vrije Universiteit Brussel Klaas Bombeke – Ugent An Jacobs – Vrije Universiteit Brussel Andrzej Klimczuk – Warsaw school of Economics Evdokimos Konstantinidis – Thes-Ahall Idoia Munoz – Bird Living Lab Benjamin Nanchen – Living Lab Handicap Dimitri Schuurman – imec Suzanne Smith – Netwell CASALA Brigitte Trousse - INRIA Judith Urlings – Maastricht University Mathias Van Compernolle - UGent Wendy Van den Broeck – Vrije Universiteit Brussel Carina Veeckman – Vrije Universiteit Brussel Eveline Vlassenroot - UGent Andree Woodcock – Coventry University UK

ENoLL Office Contributors Koen Vervoort Spela Zalokar


Table of contents Top 7 papers selected by the Evaluation Committee Collaborative methods: developing a digital innovation for older people selfmanaging multimorbidity by Suzanne Smith, Emma Murphy, Patricia Sheridan, Mary Galvin, An Jacobs, Myriam Sillevis Smitt, Cora Van Leeuwen & Julie Doyle - page 10 The Italian case of Lecco innovation living lab: Stakeholders’ needs and activities to contribute to the technology innovation process in healthcare by Laura Marone, Rosella Onofrio & Cristina Masella - page 13 Bristol Living lab: diversity & inclusion by Lorraine Hudson - page 33 Engaging the wider ecosystem: co-creating future food and restaurant services by Kaisa Spilling & Annemaria Rossi - page 35 Mind The Gap: Understanding and communicating the business value of cocreation by Suvi Seikkula, Julia Nevmerzhitskaya & Aletta Purola - page 38 Living CoLab: A conceptual framework to set up and facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations to tackle societal challenges in a living lab setting by Indre Kalinauskaite, Rens Brankaert, Lu Yuan, Tilde Bekker, Aarnout Brombacher & Steven Vos - page 54 Fast Track Living labs: the problem solution sprint by Dimitri Schuurman - page 71

Health & Environment Designing a ubiquitous artifact for Digital Wellbeing in everyday life by Suhaib Aslam - page 74 Social prescribing in Australia: How the bottom-up model of citizen science can facilitate stakeholder engagement in health service design by Sonja Pedell, Ann Borda & Alen Keirnan - page 79 Rainfall and flood monitoring through citizen science in urban living labs by Carina Veeckman & Laura Temmerman - page 98 Evaluation and Design guidelines for behavior change in renewable energy communities by Olivia De Ruyck, Peter Conradie, Lieven De Marez & Jelle Saldien page 117


Public Sector Innovation European Green Deal: the Living Lab for Codeveloping Digital Energy Solutions by Joelle Mastelic, Francesco Cimmino & Stefano Tarantola - page 118 Design Sprint as a Tool to Support Collaborative Planning of Green Infrastructure by Maija BergstrĂśm & Annamaria Rossi - page 126 The role of living labs in arts-led urban regeneration by Yana Voynova - page 130 Blending artistic and living lab approaches to engage with foreign citizens by Isis Gouedard, Damien Gauthier, Nicholas Croquet & Sonia Miny - page 136 Living labs as an ecosystem for innovation procurement - and vice versa: The FABULOS Pre-Commercial Procurement case by Renske Martijnse-Hartikka page 162

Urban & Societal Challenges A systematic literature review on living labs in the context of higher education by Hacer Tercanli - page 165 Urban Living Labs, Circular Economy and Nature-based solutions. 'New Soil' as common ground by Grazia Sveva Ascione, Federico Cuomo & Nicole Mariotti page 166 Living labs for the urban commons: Developing collaborative governance arrangements through experimental learning environments by Joachim Meerkerk, Julie Ferguson & John Grin - page 185 Piloting an autonomous shuttle in the Brussels Capital Region: living lab insights and user reactions and acceptance by Wim Vanobberghen, Evy Rombaut, Manon Feys, Cedric De Cauwer, Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, Federico Gobbato, Geoffrey Grulois, Laura Temmerman & Alice de SĂŠjournet - page 193 Urban Living Labs: Problematizing the Lab-City-Interface by Birk Diener - page 218 Urban consumption spaces as living labs: A novel hospitality experience measure toward a futureproof equilibrium by Julie Ferguson, Karoline Wiegerink & Stan Majoor -page 226


Theoretical & Methodological challenges “The more you are willing to give, the more you get” How multifaced, multistakeholder innovation ecosystems are governed and orchestrated, and how to research them? by Tuija Hirvikoski & Kaisla Saastamoinen - page 234 Open Innovation Business Models : the example of living labs in France by Ingrid Fasshauer - page 245 Observational study on cross-cultural differences in living lab research: protocol & pilot by Nele De Witte, Ingrid Adriaensen, Leen Broeckx, Vicky Van Der Auwera, Sacha Vermeulen, T. Vieira & T. Van Daele - page 261 Methodology for Establishing a Living Lab from Experiences in Japan by Keiichi Kitazume, Mari Takaku, Mio Nishiyama & Yusuke Okamura - page 268 Facilitation and facilitator roles in lab-driven innovation process in experiencebased tourism by Yati - page 275 Analysis of a program solving local issues in collaboration with technology companies: a case study of the SUNABA as a living lab in Shiojiri by Masataka Mori & Takashi Yamada - page 282

Tools & Technologies for user-centric innovation Developing open technology solutions in simulated living lab environment: research in progress amidst the Covid-19 pandemic by Molitor, T., Clark, C., Wood, E., Wagner, U., Bausch, N. & Holliday, N. - page 285 Examining people’s implicit smartphone use attitudes via an adapted IAT procedure by Floor Denecker, Lieven De Marez & Koen Ponnet - page 296 Exploring co-agency in human-machine assemblages: Toward a methodology for collective intelligence design by David Crombie & Soenke Zehle - page 307 Finding citizen insights: a digital deep dive into everyday life in Smart Kalasatama by Mette Hiltunen & Michel Nader Sayùn - page 318 Neural Rope #1: an urban collaborative project between art and scientific research by Elena Marchiori & Luca Maria Gambardella - page 322


Doctoral Consortium Exploring lab-driven innovation processes in experience-based tourism by Yati page 329 Urban living labs – ULL: Sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems from the perspective of the circular economy by Diego Hernando - page 335 The development journey of open service innovation in the public and private sector by Ruusa Ligthart & Tim Minshall - page 356


Practitioner Presentation

Collaborative methods: developing a digital innovation for older people self-managing multimorbidity Authors Suzanne Smith* (presenter), John Dinsmore**, Emma Murphy**, Patricia Sheridan*, Mary Galvin**, An Jacobs***, Myriam Sillevis Smitt*** , Cora vanLeeuwen*** and Julie Doyle*

*NetwellCASALA Research Centre and Living Lab, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Dundalk, Ireland. **Trinity Centre for Health Practice Innovation (TCHPI), Trinity College Dublin, Ireland ***imec, Ghent, Belgium

Abstract There is a greater call than ever for digital health and wellbeing solutions. This presentation will explore the methods used in a multi-stakeholder, cross-country collaborative living lab project, to design and test a digital innovation for use by all stakeholders in the self-management of multimorbidity by older people. The approach enhanced the value of sustained multi-stakeholder involvement through all stages of the innovation process, ensuring competence and relevance resulting in high levels of trust and engagement as well as improved wellbeing outcomes.

Key words: Ageing, digital health, multimorbidity, digital innovation


Introduction The Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in a greater than ever call for digital health and wellbeing solutions, especially those that might support potentially vulnerable members of our communities.1 In meeting this demand, there is an opportunity to apply learning from the real-world based work of living labs. This presentation explores the methods used in a multi-stakeholder, cross-country collaborative living lab project, to design and test a digital innovation for use by older people, in the selfmanagement of multimorbidity, with or without the support of their care network.

Method Stakeholders involved in a forty-two month long project, across trial sites in two countries, included: older people with at least two chronic health conditions (heart failure, COPD, diabetes, heart disease); family caregivers; paid care support workers; and a wide range of hospital and community healthcare professionals. Collaboration with all stakeholders began in the project design and pre-requirements phase and was ongoing throughout the design, development, testing, implementation, and evaluation phases.2 Crucially, all engagement focussed on the older end-user of the digital solution, while also recognising the needs and requirements of the care eco-system around each user. Methods used included traditional focus groups and interviews but also crossstakeholder user panels, design workshops, team sprints and friendly trial testing.2 Both technical and wellbeing trial support was also provided through a technical helpdesk and telephone nurse triage service, providing remote monitoring and regular check-in with participants.

Findings Key findings relate to the complexity of self-managing multimorbidity and the barriers impacting effective care coordination.2,3 Led by findings from the pre-requirements gathering stage, the digital solution developed, ProACT (Integrated Technology Systems for ProACTive Patient Centred Care), integrates data from a range of digital health and wellbeing devices (pulse oximeter, watch, weight scales, blood pressure monitor) with user-input data and presents them in a user-friendly format.4 Data over time is available to view, inviting reflection and behavioural self-care responses to symptom and reading patterns. Goal support systems were also developed and tested with participants during the trial.5

Discussion The wide breath of methodologies resulted in considerable engagement throughout a lengthy 12-month trial, which is particularly notable given the age and health profile of the participants. Secondly, multiple and cross-stakeholder approaches yielded an


intervention that effectively tested transferability to other end-user cohorts as well as advancing pre-commercialisation readiness.6 Among the many findings from the project, some of the key lessons learned point to the value of sustained multi-stakeholder engagement through all stages of the innovation process, not just during the design and testing phases. The application of mixed methods facilitated tailoring of activities to the stakeholders, as well as the purpose and intended outcome of the activity. Furthermore, ongoing participation of researchers in parallel friendly trial activities ensured current familiarity with the technology used in the trial, especially where commercial grade devices are in use, and ensured researchers remained grounded in the real-world experience of participants.

Conclusion Ultimately, the collaborative methods employed in the ProACT project, incorporated a real-world contextual approach to digital innovation design and testing. Such an approach forms four cornerstones necessary for successful trial and implementation experiences for all stakeholders: competence, relevance, trust and ultimately engagement.

References 1. Whitelaw, S., Mamas, A., Topol, E. and Van Spall, H. (2020) Applications of digital technology in Covid-19 pandemic planning and response, The Lancet, June 29 2020. DOI: 2. Doyle, J., Hoogerwerf, E., Kuiper, J., Desideri, L., Fiordelmondo,V., Hannigan, C., Jacobs, A., Maluccelli, L., Murphy, E. and Smith, S. (2017) Whitepaper on the needs and requirements of older people with multiple chronic conditions to self manage their health. ProACT Deliverable, available at: 3. Smith, S., Murphy, E., Hannigan, C., Dinsmore, J., *Doyle, J. (2019) Supporting older people with multimorbidity: The care burden of home health-care assistants in Ireland. Home Health Care Services Quarterly, 38: 241-255. 4. Doyle, J., Murphy, E., Kuiper, J., Smith, S., Hannigan, C., Jacobs, A. and Dinsmore, J. (2019) Managing Multimorbidity- Identifying Design Requirements for a Digital SelfManagement Tool to Support Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions. CHI '19: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems May 2019 Paper No.: 399:1–14 5. Doyle, J., Murphy, E., Hannigan, C., Smith, S., Bettencourt-Silva, J., Dinsmore, J. (2018) Designing digital goal support systems for multimorbidity self-management- Insights from older adults and their care network. Pervasive Health '18: Proceedings of the 12th EAI International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare, May 2018 pp168–177. 6. Deparis, S., Tommasi, P., Pascale, A., Rifai, H., Doyle, J. and Dinsmore, J. (2019). Building a Risk Model for the Patient-centred Care of Multiple Chronic Diseases, 2019 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), San Diego, CA, USA, 2019, pp. 1078-1082, doi: 10.1109/BIBM47256.2019.8983235.


Full Research paper

The Italian Case of Lecco Innovation Living Lab: Stakeholders’ Needs and Activities to Contribute to the Technology Innovation Process in Healthcare Authors Laura Marone, Rossella Onofrio, Cristina Masella

Abstract Healthcare technology innovation is a very complex process in which different actors interact with each other, creating a large number of interconnections and synergies to design technology innovations. Despite the increasing number of Living Labs (LLs) in healthcare, building and maintaining them for technology innovation in healthcare is challenging. Collaboration with stakeholders remains an issue of major concern in healthcare. The purpose of this paper is to identify stakeholders’ needs in building an LL in healthcare and to plan activities to foster the innovation process. The paper is based on an exploratory single case study investigating an Italian LL. Eight stakeholders’ needs have been identified and validated. Specific activities have been identified to improve the innovation process in terms of the stakeholders’ needs. The study contributes to the development of domain-specific knowledge and, as such, to the fostering of studies on and implementation of LLs in healthcare.

Key words: Living Labs; healthcare innovation; health technologies; multi-stakeholder network


1. Introduction The literature on Living Labs (LLs) has increasingly acknowledged the importance of combining both user-centred and open innovation approaches in the development of innovations and technologies. The concept of a LL was first introduced by Professor William Mitchell at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2011 (Pallot et al., 2011) and evolved in subsequent years, receiving strong interest from policymakers and academicians. While the number of LLs has increased, it is still difficult to identify a widely accepted definition of LL in the literature (Tang et al., 2012; Dell’Era et al., 2014; Leminen et al., 2017). An LL has been described as a research methodology (Eriksson et al., 2005; Dell’Era et al., 2019), an experimental environment (Westerlund and Leminen, 2011; Ballon and Delaer, 2005), an innovation approach (Feurstein et al., 2008), an innovation network (Nyström et al., 2014) and an infrastructure shared by different stakeholders (Guzmán et al., 2013). As a result, widely different experiences coexist under the name LL (Angelini et al., 2016). Each LL is driven by different actors (Westerlund and Leminen, 2011), assuming a plurality of network structures (Leminen et al., 2016) or adopting different methodologies and tools (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009) articulated as different types (Schuurman et al., 2013; Ståhlbröst, 2012) and covering different topics, subject specialities experts (Burbridge et al., 2017) and contexts, such as ICT innovation (Eriksson, 2015), urban sustainability (Bulkeley, 2016; Mulder et al., 2008, Chronée et al., 2019) and campus life (Tang et al., 2012). LLs have been strongly supported by the European Network of Living Lab (ENoLL) a non-profit organisation aimed at promoting the diffusion of LLs across Europe, monitoring LL best practices and disseminating LL results. More than 400 LL experiences have been recognised by ENoLL over the years; they are heterogeneous in terms of applications, contexts and approaches. Many of them are linked to funded projects and often seem to become inactive when the projects end. Maintaining LLs over time is one of the main challenges that must be addressed.


Living Labs in Healthcare

Of the LLs labelled as active on the list available on the ENoLL website, many concern the healthcare field or at least report ‘health and well-being’ as one of their work domains and areas of interest. A key concern for health technology engineers and healthcare managers is how to leverage the opportunities offered by new medical and digital technologies to create products and solutions that improve quality of life. Decision-makers, professionals and citizens have shown a burgeoning interest in developing effective approaches to managing these emerging opportunities and challenges. There is now an overwhelming range of programmes and initiatives dedicated to healthcare innovations in different contexts (hospital-based, home-based and wearable


technologies). Nevertheless, innovation in healthcare is a complex process. The Health Technology Assessment imposes rules for the healthcare community, and technologies for health and healthcare, no matter how novel or mature, are always embedded in complex sociotechnical systems and immersed in dense networks of relations among different stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem, which adds further complexity that should be managed. In particular, different actors interact with each other to design technologies, creating a large number of interconnections and synergies in the process. Different professionals are constantly involved, and often more than one organisation is required for a single case to ensure that different perspectives are covered (Agoguè et al., 2013; Swikels et al., 2018). Therefore, the search for solutions and innovations is not easy because it requires a multiperspective approach that requires micro-dynamic collaborations. Moreover, the patient assumes a central role in the innovation process. On the one hand, the literature on empowerment suggests that people will be in charge of managing their personal health and well-being data; on the other hand, the patient’s involvement in the innovation process is commonly associated with significant benefits in terms of functionality, usability and fitting with market needs (Davey et al., 2011). Accordingly, healthcare organisations must cooperate with external actors, involving the end-users in a multidisciplinary approach (Wass and Vimarlunnd, 2016). The LL seems to fit such a complex sociotechnical system (Liedtke et al., 2012; Brankaert et al., 2017), as the concept behind it highlights the importance of the network and aims at creating collaborative links among users, researchers, producers, utilisers and public and private organisations, emphasising the coexistence of heterogeneous actors and stakeholders (Almirall and Wareham 2011; Leminen et al., 2012; Veeckman et al., 2013; Nyström et al., 2014; Leminen et al., 2017). Moreover, Houkipero and colleagues (2019), inspired by the finding of their study in an eHealth accelerator, proposed the Living Lab approach as a design element in the accelerator model because of its proved usefulness in the development of new products and services in the field. Some scholars have attempted to identify a list of factors that can be used to build and manage an LL in healthcare (Kang, 2012; Kehayia et al., 2014; Favela et al., 2015; Angelini et al., 2016; Van Geenhuizen, 2018). Among them, Van Geenhuizen (2014, 2018) dedicated particular attention to the challenges related to the management of stakeholders’ networks and multi-stakeholder cooperation, and Callari and colleagues (2019) investigated the needs and requirements of the involvement of endusers as participants in LL initiatives. This is in line with literature on LL implementation in other contexts (Hossain et al., 2019). Despite the increasing number of LLs in healthcare, building and maintaining a LL in healthcare is far from straightforward (Van Geenhuizen, 2018). Despite the fact that collaboration with stakeholders has been widely recognised as a key aspect of LLs, few studies have examined stakeholders’ needs. Accordingly, this paper aims at exploring a LL experience in healthcare to answer to the following Research Questions (RQs):


RQ1: What are the main stakeholders’ needs in building a LL (for technological innovation) and in contributing to its sustainability over time? RQ2: How can the members of a LL experience the LL approach within their project activities in order to improve the technology innovation process? To address these questions, the authors report on the EMPATIA@Lecco Project, a regional project funded by the Cariplo Foundation and the Lombardy Region, that involves clinical and technological centres of excellence in the field of rehabilitation for providing patients with a variety of different technologies in the neurorehabilitation field. Of paramount importance to the project is the establishment of a very complex collaborative network in a hi-tech healthcare context: the Lecco Innovation Living Lab (LILL). Following Yin (2009), this is the unique peculiarity that pushed the authors to select the LILL as a case study. The LILL was founded in Lecco (northern Italy), which is a territory that has a strong tradition in the field of rehabilitation and is home to many institutions (research centres and hospitals) that stand out as centres of excellence. The LILL’s main area of interest is technology innovation focused on rehabilitation. The LILL was created as part of a project funded by the Cariplo Foundation and the Lombardy Region, and the network is composed of the following stakeholders: four departments of Politecnico di Milano, five institutes of Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), four hospitals and rehabilitation centres, national patient associations (UILMD) and one territorial association (Univerlecco). The paper is organised as follows. The second section describes the research approach and methodology used. The third describes and discusses the key findings. Finally, we describe the theoretical and practical implications of our findings.

2. Research Approach When gaps in scientific literature exist, exploratory approaches are appropriate (Yin, 2009). Given the exploratory nature of our RQs, we adopted a qualitative approach. This research is based on a single case study and is articulated in two different phases in a longitudinal approach. First, in phase I, we investigated the main stakeholder needs with respect to the LL initiatives. Then, once we had identified and prioritised the needs and desires of the stakeholders as an essential starting point for the innovation process (Von Geibler et al., 2019), we co-designed the activities of our LL. This longitudinal approach was considered the most appropriate because it provides a more comprehensive method that allows following changes over time (Caruana et al., 2015). The overall research approach is shown in Figure 1.


Figure 1: Study research approach


Design of Research Protocol

In order to answer our research questions, we designed a study protocol as a guide for the entire study. It is based on the work of Leminem (2017), which assumes that a LL is always formed of three main elements: (1) a multi-stakeholder network; (2) the involvement of end-users; and (3) a real-life environment. Within the three elements, we identified six types of categories from the literature, as reported in Table 1. Table 1: LL elements and categories LL Elements

Categories Relationships among members

Multi-stakeholder network

Involvement of end-users Real-life environment

Governance of the collaborative (institutional differences) Management of the sharing of technology and knowledge/competencies (clinical/research) Identification and recruitment of users (patients/citizens) Involvement of users (patients/citizens) Definition of function of virtual and physical environment


Within the first element, a multi-stakeholder network, the identified categories are: (1) relationships among members; (2) governance of the collaborative; and (3) management of the sharing of technology and knowledge/competencies. This is supported by scholars who claimed that differing stakeholder views and needs can lead to various difficult-to-manage conflicts (Brankaert and Den Ouden, 2018). Hossain and colleagues (2019) suggested the importance of understanding how LL networks are organised in practice, especially in complex systems. Moreover, the importance of governance is confirmed within different contexts by Kehayia et al. (2014), Van Geenhuizen (2014), Kang (2012) and Chrnèer (2019). Within the second element, the involvement of end-users, the following categories were identified: identification and recruitment of users and involvement of users (patients/citizens). This is supported by authors who have described the approaches to user involvement and participation in the innovation process as a key aspect of LLs (Schuurman and Marez, 2012), presenting different ways to involve users (Almirall et al., 2012) and including their needs in every phase of the innovation process (Ståhlbröst, 2008; Callari et al., 2019). Many scholars have addressed the possibility of adopting this approach to accelerate innovation and knowledge enhancement through the involvement of users from the earliest stages of the process (Van Geenhuizen, 2014; Hielkema and Hongisto, 2013; Kang, 2012; Følstad, 2008; Fahy et al., 2007). For the third element, a real-life environment, the category identified is definition of the function of the virtual and physical environments. This is demonstrated by a literature debate about different sets of LL environments, which can be either physical spaces, resources or virtual facilities shared among stakeholders (Guzmán et al., 2013) to develop innovation activities or physical representations (Chronèer et al., 2019) or isolated spaces, such as a user’s home (Nyström et al., 2014), to engage the final user in a real-life context (Hossain et al., 2019).


Data collection and analysis

Phase I: Identification of Stakeholders’ Needs In the first research phase, individual semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify stakeholders’ needs in building an LL and maintaining it over time. Specifically, 15 respondents were interviewed. The interviewee profiles are provided in Table 2. We gave the interviewees a brief presentation of the study and the research protocol, with the list of the three macro LL elements and categories identified from the literature review (Table 1). For each of them, the questions attempted to capture the ways in which different LILL actors conceptualise and articulate their needs to build/maintain LL technology innovations in healthcare over time. The information collected was analysed using a uniform approach based on transcription, validation and integration. In particular, we used a coding technique to examine data line by line or paragraph by paragraph for significant events, experiences, feelings, and so on,


which were then denoted as concepts (Corbin and Strauss, 2014). The data analysis began with first-order codes to identify the informants’ views of the needs. Then, the first-order codes were organised and grouped into categories, highlighting similar shared characteristics for further investigation. Each interview was audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed verbatim. The data analysis steps were continuously discussed among the authors and, when possible, with other scholars, ensuring the reliability of the analysis. Data were collected between the end of 2018 and 2019. Table 2: Interviewees' profiles Interviewees' Profiles

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Internal partner representative of the CNR (IBFM institute) Internal partner representative of the CNR (ICMATE institute) Internal partner representative of the CNR (IFM institute) Internal partner representative of the CNR (INO institute) Internal partner representative of the CNR (IBM institute) Internal partner representative of the CNR (STIIMA institute) Internal partner representative of the CNR (IPCB institute) Internal partner representative of the Politecnico di Milano (DEIB Department) 9. Internal partner representative of the Politecnico di Milano (Mechanical Department) 10. Internal partner representative of the Politecnico di Milano (Polo Lecco) 11. Internal clinical partner representative of the ASST Lecco 12. Internal clinical partner representative of the IRCCS INRCA 13. Internal clinical partner representative of the IRCS Medea 14. Internal clinical partner representative of the Villa Beretta rehabilitation centre 15. Board member representative of the user association Phase II: Design of Technology Innovation Activities within the LILL In the second phase, the study adopts a co-production approach by involving the relevant stakeholders of the project in the design and delivery of the activities that are intended to create a successful LL approach. This phase was articulated in two workshops held between 2019 and early 2020 in Lecco (Italy). Each workshop was led by both a moderator who facilitated the discussion among actors and at least one representative for each scientific/clinical partner of the project. The composition of the participants in each workshop did not change over the course of the workshops; this was done to encourage the creation of trusting relationships among the actors. Each of the co-creation workshops lasted around 120 minutes, of which around 60


minutes was dedicated to the presentation of the status of the project, the goals of the activities and the roles and responsibilities of each actor, and about 60 minutes was dedicated to discussion. The first workshop was aimed at deepening the participants’ understanding of the concept of a LL and of its main components. In this workshop, a general discussion around each of the three main elements of a ‘traditional’ LL captured in the research design was discussed in order to redefine and prioritise the key elements to be addressed in regards to the LILL by gathering participants’ perspectives on the topic. The second workshop took place after the end of the interviews and before launching the LILL activities. It aimed at validating the results of the interviews and it addressed to co-design the activities to enclose the LL approach within the innovation process. This workshop was related to the first key element of this study research framework – multi-stakeholder cooperation – as the priority for the interviewees. The same approach will be applied to the other two key elements of our research framework and two more co-creation workshops will be held to discuss the involvement of end-users and the real-life environment. The investigation of these two elements was put on hold due to the recent Covid-19 emergency.

3. Results This section reports the results of our qualitative research about: (1) stakeholders’ awareness of the LL mission; (2) the identification of stakeholder needs for the LILL’s development and their contribution to its sustainability over time in a healthcare context; and (3) the definition of activities that allow the participant to experience the LL approach to foster technology innovation.


Stakeholders’ awareness about the LL mission

The first category of findings concerns the level of awareness about the mission of the LILL. The interviewees stated that it was born from collaborations between clinical and research actors in Lecco’s geographical territory, which are mostly linked to funded research projects or gentlemen’s agreements. Nevertheless, they declared that the management of the network during projects is extremely complex and unstructured. The LILL describes itself as an evolution of the existing consortium and that its goal is to become a unique entity, facilitating and simplifying high-level interconnections to accelerate the process of innovation and product introduction to the market. This broad idea was interpreted and explained by our interviewees. As one said, ‘LILL can be considered a large box in which you can find several colours. They can all be used together or only some of them to retrieve the final product.’ An interviewee also stated, ‘LILL can offer professionals the possibility to operate with updated infrastructures and multidisciplinary competencies. It is not only experimentation, but it is a matter of entering into a project perspective and creating


together’ and ‘it is an environment where everyone is free to expose themselves to others’. Despite the interviewees’ different points of view, they agreed on the importance of common interests in being part of the LILL network, recognising the positive impact of receiving adequate visibility (15/15 interviewees), gaining financial benefits (15/15 interviewees), reinforcing collaborations among stakeholders and improving the impact of scientific output (15/15 interviewees). This unanimous agreement reflects the cultural affinity of the group that make it extremely cohesive. However, the lack of awareness of what an LL is and of what its main features are leave the participants still insecure about how and why to empower the LL approach within their activities in the innovation process. With the aim of increasing participant awareness about LLs and their key elements, the first workshop presented the different typologies of LLs, and their traditional features were discussed. Two workshop templates were proposed; they focused on the main objective of LILL, the mission of LILL and the three key components of LLs in general. All of the participants agreed to consider the LILL, under development in the EMPATIA@Lecco Project, a facilitator for multi-stakeholder collaboration and knowledge sharing following the classification proposed by Shuurman and colleagues (2013). In line with LLs in other contexts, the LILL allows the integration of both internal and external knowledge dealing with the open innovation paradigm (Nyström et al., 2014; Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009), and it is strategic for the implementation of public, private and people partnerships (PPPP) (Gascó, 2017) to develop and deliver technical innovation (Guzmán et al., 2013). During the workshop, all the categories proposed in the study guide were confirmed and none of the indicated categories was defined as inappropriate or negligible. The workshop confirmed that the multistakeholder network dimension is the most relevant one, emphasising the role of relationships among its members, governance of the collaborative and the management of the sharing of technologies and knowledge/competencies. The workshop also confirmed, as a core aspect of the innovation process, the involvement of end-users. Nevertheless, the involvement of patients from the beginning of the innovation process means dealing with stringent regulations. This is the reason why understanding how to manage the network in terms of governance and relationships between members with different institutional nature is a priority for a LL based on complex networks such as these.


Identification of stakeholders’ needs

Based on the interviewees’ responses, the main stakeholder needs in building an LL and ensuring its sustainability over time are reported in Table 3.


Table 3: Stakeholders’ needs classified according to LL elements and categories Living Lab Elements

Categories Relationships among its members

Multi-stakeholder network

Governance of the collaborative

Managing the sharing of technology and knowledge/competencies

Involvement of end-users

Identification and recruitment of users

Involvement of users

Real-life environment

Definition of function of virtual and physical environments

Stakeholders’ Needs

1. Improving stakeholders’ commitment and building trust 2. Defining guidelines/rules 3. Using tools and/or platforms for sharing knowledge 4. Managing differences among institutional identities 5. Mapping competencies/technologies 6. Defining patients’ recruitment protocols (e.g., ensuring GDPR) 7. Creating different communities of patients, caregivers and volunteers 8. Identifying resources and infrastructures of the physical space

The stakeholders’ needs are described in more detail below. -

Improving stakeholders’ commitment and building trust

The unstructured collaborations are strongly influenced by personal relationships, which sometimes show cases of non-cooperative behaviours that negatively affect the entire innovation process. Incorrect management of interpersonal conflicts due to different backgrounds, value systems and hierarchies of roles may lead to the degradation of personal relationships. One of our respondents noted the importance of introducing the LL as a neutral and safe place, highlighting the need for trust and communication among LL actors. In addition, they said that the degree of commitment among the partners has an impact on establishing a common vision and goals. One of the interviewees said, ‘I realised that this type of organisation works if there is someone who strongly believes in it. Being enthusiastic is the trigger for good collaboration.’ Another stated, ‘I'm always ready to focus more on human relationships than on management schemes.


Sometimes I find difficulties in interacting professionally with people with whom the human relationship is weaker.’ In light of this, it is clear that trust is the foundation for building and maintaining relationships over time. The interviewees further noted that improving the level of shared commitment is the key to establishing synergistic relationships and, consequently, attracting the entire network. Indeed, the stakeholders’ commitment and trust in one another are directly related. -

Defining guidelines/rules

Some of the most cited issues related to network dynamics focus on how the living lab is managed, at both the strategic and operational levels. Many respondents highlighted aspects such as access to the infrastructure, conditions of use and responsibility, ownership and property rights. As one of the research partners stated, ‘In order to organise a set of rules to manage the relationship, it is absolutely necessary to identify the spaces that will be used and the existing infrastructures to be shared, while considering issues of safety and responsibility and fees, if necessary.’ In addition, the clinical partners shed light on the need to define rules to manage the risk of increasing workloads and their impact on clinical routine practice. Although the workload seemed to be their major concern, the clinicians reported their willingness to share technologies/competencies for the sake of the LL. -

Using tools and/or platforms for sharing knowledge

Structuring the network aims at simplifying relations between stakeholders. Nevertheless, nowadays, interactions are still managed without standardised systems or infrastructures. Not having a shared platform was considered by most of the interviewees a barrier to be overcome. One of our interviewees said, ‘Having a tool to manage sharing knowledge is so relevant because it is necessary to make data and information homogeneous. We are far from it. Despite the relevance of these aspects, implementing a knowledge sharing tool or platform may not be easy, but we have to think about it.’ -

Managing differences among institutional identities

Many respondents identified differences between the institutions’ identities and organisational structures as a critical factor. As already mentioned, the LILL involves a highly complex network of actors, including universities, research institutes, hospitals and other clinical partners. Each of these actors has its own institutional identity. As one of the clinical stakeholders explained, ‘Compared to research institutes, our company is a private company, so we must take a different approach because it is the owner of the clinic that makes the decisions.’ Considering and managing these differences between institutional identities is an essential step in building the LL and ensuring its sustainability.



Mapping competencies/technologies

Many interviewees reported that collaboration in such complex networks can be limited by colleagues’ lack of knowledge about competencies or infrastructures. In this context, mapping enabling technologies was recognised as relevant by almost all the interviewees. In addition, the technical skills within an organisation rapidly evolve, and their continuous updating, if not monitored, was perceived as an obstacle. In this context, the nature of the actors involved in the network must also be considered. As mentioned previously, the LILL ecosystem is rich in clinical excellence and research in the field of rehabilitation, and in some cases, those who manage these institutes, being very proud of their work, tend to overestimate their organisational skills. These cultural aspects and the continuous technological updating are aspects that must be managed. -

Defining patients’ recruitment protocols (e.g., ensuring GDPR)

One particular issue for LLs in healthcare is how to involve the end-user (in this case, the patients). This is because regulation is always supervised by clinical institutions. Currently, patients can only be recruited by health professionals and only rarely can they be reached outside clinical facilities. Therefore, creating ad hoc protocols for patient involvement could be a major challenge. -

Creating different communities of patients, caregivers and volunteers

All the interviewees agreed on the fact that the development of a network will make it easier to reach a wider audience with the innovation process. Researchers would like to involve patient associations or the specific communities (elderly, kids, volunteers) in different geographical areas to recruit users who, thanks to ad hoc informed consent, may participate in different projects. -

Identifying resources and infrastructures of the physical space

According to all the interviewees, the LILL should have a physical space. The interviewees claimed that they need an emblematic space to make the network tangible, saying, ‘When you have a physical space, you know what you can do’ and ‘What you don’t see may easily disappear.’ The place should represent the relationship among partners. As one of the research partners explained, ‘It gives a concrete vision to a specific objective,’ becoming the interface between the internal network and the external world. Therefore, its design must be considered a priority for this kind of LL.



Structuring activities to experience the LL approach

The second workshop was mainly based on the results of the first one. The templates proposed for the discussion were focused on the first LL key element: the multistakeholder network. The stakeholder needs identified from the interviews were first validated by the workshop participants without adding any other relevant needs. In addition to the validation, the discussion revealed a clear hierarchy among them, prioritising certain needs. Here is the ranking of the needs that was created in the second workshop: first, improving stakeholders’ commitment and building trust; second, defining guidelines/rules; third, mapping competencies/technologies; and fourth, using tools and/or platforms for sharing knowledge and infrastructure. The second objective of the workshop was to co-create and plan the activities to satisfy the stakeholders’ needs while experimenting with the LL approach. First, to ensure the multidisciplinary nature and the involvement of the different stakeholders in each phase of the innovation process, specific working groups were established for each technology innovation. Each working group was composed of both clinical and research partners and participated in the development of the technology throughout the whole innovation process, from conceptualisation to testing and, eventually, to commercialisation. The technologies developed by each working group are listed in Table 4. Twelve of the working groups developed a novel technology, while six of them focused on developing and testing novel clinical protocols and pathways. The creation of working groups to participate in the entire innovation process was an activity that strengthened trust and knowledge sharing within the network.


Table 4: Working groups (WGs) and the technologies developed WG Technologies Developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Pseudoelastic functional orthoses Toe-up ankle mover 3D printed chest orthosis Variable elasticity material Miniature dampers Cellular materials for biomedical applications Interface materials Upper limb active exoskeleton Post-stroke assistive platform Rehabilitation with LINarm Sensor-fusion devices Mother-child clinical pathways Affective behavioural patients Development of digital environments for spatial orientation in PCIs Virtual environments for elderly patients with chronic respiratory diseases Wearable sensors Dementia clinical pathway

Second, in order to meet the needs related to managing the sharing of technology and knowledge/competencies and the governance of the collaborative, two working groups were created to work on how to share research assets. These working groups (Table 5) worked on two pilot applications focusing on 3D printers and sensors, which were considered peculiar assets for the LILL. For both the research assets, a database was created as a starting point. Then, thanks to the joint work, it was possible to work on the creation of clear and standardised rules for the management of the research sharing infrastructure. We first understood and defined the possible administrative arrangements among the LILL members, who had different institutional nature, governance styles and preferred bureaucratic procedures. We then mapped the possible services processes (linked to the shared use of these two research assets) that LILL could offer. Finally, as a last step, we created the rules based on the constraints previously analysed.


WG 1 2

Table 5: Working groups (WG) and research asset sharing Shared Research Assets 3D printers belonging to the LILL members Sensors belonging to the LILL members

4. Conclusion This study is based on the work of Leminem (2017), which assumes that a LL is always formed of three main elements: (1) a multi-stakeholder network; (2) the involvement of end-users; and (3) a real-life environment. Beginning with a literature review of LLs in healthcare, we found, to the best of our knowledge, no detailed analysis of LLs that considered stakeholders’ needs in relation to the technology innovation process in such a complex sociotechnical system. The objective of this article was to examine stakeholder needs in building an LL to foster technology innovation and plan specific activities to answer specific needs. We adopted an empirical approach based on a single case study. The first category of findings is related to the identified stakeholder needs (reported in Table 3) and explains why and how to implement specific actions to foster the technology innovation process in healthcare. Beyond the validation of stakeholder needs in line with previous studies (Van Geenhuizen 2014, 2018), this study contributes by defining an action plan to implement activities to meet stakeholders’ needs. In particular, in this study, we limited our analysis to the activities related to the key element of a multi-stakeholder network as one of the priorities for a LL. Beginning with the priority needs, we identified specific activities to be implemented to improve the technology innovation process in LLs. To meet the needs related to relationships among its members, governance of the collaborative and managing the sharing of technology and knowledge/competencies, eighteen working groups were created to develop specific technology innovations, and two working groups were dedicated to the management and governance of shared research infrastructure assets among LL members, focusing specifically on two pilot applications related to 3D printers and sensors. These results contribute to the diffusion and enhancement of LLs in healthcare and the improvement of the innovation process of future healthcare by making advanced technological solutions widespread and contributing to the interaction of multiple stakeholders. The interaction of stakeholders is the main idea that is an emerging priority because stakeholders may be subject to highly regulated systems and many administrative constraints, but there is a strong need to collaborate to produce technological innovations for health. The research also yielded a further interesting result, which was increasing the awareness of LL actors about the set of competencies/technologies available to LLs to enable the effective circulation of ideas and information within a complex structure


of actors. This study suffers from some limitations, as it is based on a single case study. The study makes a theoretical contribution to the discussions of technology innovation in healthcare and particularly to the LL literature by focusing on the stakeholders’ needs and the activities that need to be implemented to enhance technology innovation in LLs. This study also has practical implications; in particular, it contributes to the identification of a way to share and use research assets among stakeholders who are characterised by different types of governance and constraints in line with the need to create an open ecosystem based on sharing research resources and infrastructures. Moreover, this study also contributes by fostering policies that support collaborative research in the field of technology innovation in healthcare. Overall, the study offers a clear demonstration of the importance of developing specific knowledge for fostering the proper implementation of activities in an LL in healthcare. In this regard, it calls for a new research agenda. Specifically, studies using a multiple case study approach and a larger number of cases is necessary to improve the quality of the data and allow for a conclusion regarding LLs in a healthcare context. Overall, the study clearly demonstrates the importance of developing specific knowledge to promote the sustainable implementation of LLs in the healthcare sector. Further research will be dedicated to investigating the other two LL elements (the involvement of end-users and a real-life environment). Furthermore, the satisfaction analysis of stakeholder needs based on the activities implemented will be next research step to understand how the analysis of practices in LLs could supplement the theory in order to develop models and practical methods to apply in LLs that share the same problems.

Acknowledgments The authors express their gratitude to all the professionals involved in the LILL who shared their experience and knowledge. The research that is presented in this paper originates from a development process that was carried out by continuously interacting and collaborating with all the actors of the LILL. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Lombardy Region of Italy and the Cariplo Foundation for the Empatia@Lecco Project.


References Agogué, M., Yström, A., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Rethinking the Role of Intermediaries As an Architect of Collective Exploration and Creation of Knowledge in Open Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17(02), 1350007. Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 12–18. Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2011). Living Labs: Arbiters of midand ground-level innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(1), 87–102. Angelini, L., Carrino, S., Khaled, O. A., Riva-Mossman, S., & Mugellini, E. (2016). Senior living lab: An ecological approach to foster social innovation in an ageing society. Future Internet, 8(4), 1–19. Ballon, P., & Delaer, S. (2005). Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: examining European practice. Innovation, 1–22. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Holst, M., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Concept design with a living lab approach. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, HICSS, 1–10. Brankaert, R., & den Ouden, E. (2018). The Design-Driven Living Lab: A New Approach to Exploring Solutions to Complex Societal Challenges. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 44–51. Brankaert, R (2016). Design for Dementia: A Design-Driven Living Lab to Involve People Living with Dementia and their Context. Eindhoven, The Netherlands: University of Technology Eindhoven Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Palgan, Y. V. (2016). ScienceDirect Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 13–17. Callari, T. C., Moody, L., Saunders, J., Ward, G., Holliday, N., & Woodley, J. (2019). Exploring Participation Needs and Motivational Requirements When Engaging Older Adults in an Emerging Living Lab. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(3), 38–50. Caruana EJ, Roman M, Hernández-sánchez J, & Solli P. (2015) Longitudinal studies. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7(11):E537-40. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2015.10.63 Chronéer, D., Ståhlbröst, A., Habibipour, A., & Raban, J. (2019). Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(3), 50–63. Calyam, P., Jahnke I., Mishra A., Antequera R., Chemodanov D., & Skubic M. (2017). Toward an ElderCare Living Lab for Sensor-Based Health Assessment and Physical Therapy. IEEE Cloud Computing. Corbin J., & Strauss A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.


Davey, S. M., Brennan, M., Meenana, B. J., & McAdam, R. (2011). Innovation in the medical device sector: An open business model approach for high-tech small firms. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(8), 807–824. Dell’Era, C. D., Landoni, P., & Gonzalez, S. J. (2019). User-centred and participatory strategies adopted by European Living Labs. International Journal of Innovation Management, 1950048, 1–20. Dell’Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living lab: A methodology between user-centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137–154. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user- centric ICT innovation - a European approach. Working Paper, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden. 1(13), 1–13. Fahy, C., De Leon, M. P., Stahlbrost, A., Schaffers, H., & Hongisto, P. (2007). Services of living labs and their networks. Expanding the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies, 4, 713–721. Favela, J., Kaye, J., Skubic, M., Rantz, M., & Tentori, M. (2015). Living Labs for Pervasive Healthcare Research. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 14(2), 86–89. Feurstein, K.; Hesmer, A.; Hribernik, K. A. S. (2008). pter 1 Living Labs: A New Development Strategy. Følstad, A (2008). Living Lab for innovation development of communication technology: A literature review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organization & Networks, 10, 99-131. Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs : Implementing open innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90–98. Geibler, J. Von, Piwowar, J., Greven, A., & Brown, T. (2019). The SDG-Check : Guiding Open Innovation towards Sustainable Development Goals. Technology Innovation Management Review,9(3), 20–38. Guzmán, J. G., del Carpio, A. F., Colomo-Palacios, R., & de Diego, M. V. (2013). Living Labs for User-Driven Innovation: A Process Reference Model. Research-Technology Management, 56(3), 29–39. Hielkema H., & Hongisto P. 2013. Developing the Helsinki smart city: the role of competitions for open data applications. J. Knowl. Econ. 4 (2), 190e204. Holt, G., White, J., & Williams, R. A. (2007). Developing Radical Innovation Practices in UK Healthcare and Medical Technologies. Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland International Center For, 766–772. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976–988. Kang, S. C. (2012). Initiation of the Suan-Lien Living Lab – a Living Lab with an Elderly Welfare Focus. International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 2(3), 189–199.


Kehayia, E., Swaine, B., Longo, C., Labbé, D., Ahmed, S., Archambault, P., … Poldma, T. (2014). Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities. Alter, 8(4), 303. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. (2012). Living Labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Re, (September), 6–11. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Rajahonka, M. (2017). Innovating with service robots in health. International Journal of Innovation Management, 1740013, 1–24. Liedtke C., Welfens MJ., Rohn H., & Nordmann J. (2012). Living Lab: User-Driven Innovation for Sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 13(2): 106– 118. Mulder, I., & Stappers, P. J. (2009). Co-creat ing in Practice : Results and Challenges. 2009 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE), 1–8. Nyström, A., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3). Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., Scapin, D. (2011). Living Lab Research Landscape : From User Centred Design and User Experience towards User Cocreation. First European Summer School ”Living Labs”, Inria (ICT Usage Lab), Userlab, EsoceNet, Universcience, Aug 2010, Paris, France. inria-00612632. Swinkels I.C.S., Huygens M.W.J., Schoenmakers T.M., Nijeweme-D'Hollosy W.O., Velsen L.V., Vermeulen J., Schoone-Harmsen M., Jansen Y.J.F.M., Van Schayck O.C.P., Friele R., & De Witte L. (2018). Lessons learned from a living lab on the broad adoption of eHealth in primary health care. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(3) Schuurman, D., Mahr, D., Marez, L. De, & Ballon, P. (2013). A Fourfold Typology of Living Labs : an Empirical Investigation amongst the ENoLL Community. In Proc. International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) & IEEE International Technology Management Conference. Schuurman, D., & Marez, L. De. (2012). Structuring User Involvement in Panel-Based Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 31–38. Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT: The Living Lab way of User Involvement. Doctoral Dissertation. Luleà Tekniska Universitet. Ståhlbröst, A. (2012). A set of key principles to assess the impact of Living Labs. International Journal of Product Development, 17(1/2), 60. Tang, T., Wu, Z., Hämäläinen, M., & Ji, Y. (2012). From web 2.0 to living lab: An exploration of the evolved innovation principles. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 4(4), 379–385. Van Geenhuizen, M (2014). Critical factors in health innovation in cities: from ivory tower to living lab. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 13(2/3/4), 258. Van Geenhuizen, M. (2018). A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(7), 1280– 1298.


Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(December 2013: Living Labs and Crowdsourcing), 6– 15. Wass, S., & Vimarlund, V. (2016). Healthcare in the age of open innovation – A literature review. Health Information Management Journal, 45(3), 121–133. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the Challenges of Becoming an Open Innovation Company : Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, (October), 19–26. Yin, R. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


Practitioners Presentation

Bristol Living Lab – Diversity & Inclusion Authors Dr Lorraine Hudson (Knowle West Media Centre)

Abstract It is important that we address the lack of diversity within ENoLL and ensure that Living Labs develop more inclusive practices. Bristol Living Lab (KWMC) has been working with communities for over 20 years. It is essential for organisations like ours, who have influence, to support people who experience discrimination (black and visible minority ethnic communities, those who experience social-economic disadvantage etc), whose voices aren’t often heard and who face barriers to living safe and fulfilled lives. So that they can achieve their ambitions and together we create a fairer society that values and respects difference. Our work is centred on working collaboratively with people from different backgrounds to develop new and creative models for achieving positive social change. As a partner in the EU ParCos project we are creating principles for diversity and inclusion to guide three citizen science pilots. We will share practical examples and lesson learnt of how we are working to address diversity and inclusion through Bristol Living Lab.

Key words: Diversity, Inclusion, Bristol Living Lab, ParCos

Methods/approach We are a partner in the Horizon 2020 funded ParCos (Participatory Science Communication) project. We are leading a piece of research creating principles for diversity and inclusion to guide the 3 citizen science pilots (in Belgium, Finland and the UK), and to share with other research projects. As part of this work are reflecting on our approach to diversity and inclusion (i.e. our organisational values, methods and tools we use, accessibility to our spaces, events and materials), reviewing best practice, talking to others about their approaches, and sharing ideas and learning.


Results/outcomes In this presentation we will share the outcomes of this work so far. This will include practical examples of projects we are working on with other partners, for example; • Creative Workforce for the Future - a programme designed to address the lack of diversity in the creative and cultural workforce. • Our Digital City - which aims to create a truly inclusive ‘smart city’ where no one is left behind and everyone can access the benefits of technology. We are collaborating with communities across Bristol who experience socio-economic disadvantage • Extraordinary Bodies – working with the Cirque Bijou and Diverse City team, whose artistic practice increases national awareness of the integration of deaf, disabled and non-disabled artists working equally together, to explore how they could utilise digital tools in their work, particularly around engaging audiences. We will share information about our methods and tools including The Bristol Approach (a co-design methodology) and our arts-based methods.

Lessons learned and why is this presentation of interest for the public It is important that ENoLL, a network which fosters research and innovation in communities, addresses the lack of diversity within the network. We will share practical examples and lessons learnt of how Bristol Living Lab is working to address diversity and inclusion through our Living Lab and the approaches and practices we use.


Practitioners Presentation

Engaging the Wider Ecosystem: Co-creating Future Food and Restaurant Services Authors Kaisa Spilling & Annamaria Rossi

Abstract Food is an essential part of everyday lives in cities and it also plays an important role in slowing down and adapting to climate change. There is a need to transform our urban food systems with a focus on sustainability and resilience. Mission Zero Foodprint project promotes the City of Helsinki’s carbon neutrality goals by engaging the restaurant and food industry to co-create and experiment digital solutions and an operating model to measure and make restaurants’ carbon footprint visible. Successful living lab projects and scale up require wider ecosystem and stakeholder engagement. This case study describes the process of building strong stakeholder engagement within an agile piloting process to support cocreation, experimentation and scaleup.

Key words: Stakeholder Engagement, Agile Piloting, Living Lab, Co-Creation, Food Ecosystem

Submission details The importance of food within cities and urban design is central from several angles. There is a need to transform our urban food systems with a focus on sustainability and resilience. Mission Zero Foodprint project promotes the City of Helsinki’s carbon neutrality goals by engaging the restaurant and food industry to co-create and experiment digital solutions and operating model to measure and make restaurants’ carbon footprint visible. The smart solutions and model co-created with experts and food service industry professionals will enable even the smallest restaurants to operate and develop their activities in a more sustainable direction.


Furthermore, the data can also offer competitive advantages and support consumers’ informed choices. The aim is that the solutions serving the needs of the small and medium sized restaurants will be available openly and widely used after the project. This demands wide engagement of the food and restaurant industry during the project. An open call for agile pilots, a method widely in use in Finnish cities, will be launched to explore the solutions that fit the needs of small entrepreneurs particularly. This case study describes building stakeholder engagement within an agile piloting process in a living lab setting. It describes the process of building an active innovation ecosystem to support the objectives of the project. Engaging the key actors and building an innovation ecosystem around the topic starts early on. Therefore, the focus is on the first phases of the agile piloting process. The stakeholder engagement process started by defining the focus together with the key stakeholders: An intensive stakeholder mapping process to identify the relevant collaborators and projects, a desktop research supported by a set of expert interviews and a user survey, validating the learnings with the key stakeholders and utilizing their channels and networks to communicate about the project launch. Second, the aim was to reach the target audience: the restaurants within the Helsinki region and wider food scene. This succeeded at the launch event with over 80 participants, and opening dialogue with some pioneer restaurateurs, researchers and city administrators. Third, a set of four co-creation workshops gathering over 100 participants were executed. The project partner Laurea University of Applied Science is in charge of running the workshops. Service design methods were used to discover the key issues and to solve challenges concerning food waste and energy efficiency. The insights and ideas were again validated with the key stakeholders, including collaborators from the city, as well as key restaurant partners from small to large. Fourth, a stakeholder communications concept was created. A set of 3 webinars in collaboration with other relevant projects dealing with carbon neutrality was proven to be an effective means to provide synergies between projects and keep the conversation around the topic going during Covid-19 closedown. Next, we will target the solution providers, first, widely within a FoodTech hackathon, and thereafter in a more targeted way within the Open Call and 10 pioneer restaurants to pilot the selected solutions. From numerous agile piloting programmes we have learnt that successful living lab projects and scale up require wide ecosystem and stakeholder engagement. Engaging the stakeholders from the early steps of the process is a key to successful experimentation and creates better conditions for wider learnings and scaleup.


Dialogue and engaging activities are a key for identifying and co-creating value for all parties. This helps to build foundations for making change together within the food service ecosystem. Results from this programme remain to be seen, but a solid ground for experimenting together is set.

References Spilling, K., Rinne, J. & Hämäläinen, M. 2019. Agile piloting for smarter cities: 3 cases of engaging ecosystems and communities in co-creation, Conference paper, Open Living Lab Days 2019. ses_of_engaging_ecosystems_and_communities_in_co-creation Spilling, K. & Rinne, J. 2020. Pocket Book for Agile Piloting, Helsinki, Forum Virium Helsinki, V., Spilling, K. & Bergström, M. 2018. Cook Book. Recipes for Agile Pilots. Helsinki: Forum Virium Helsinki. Forum Virium Helsinki. 2019. Mission Zero Foodprint -project pages:


Full Research paper

MIND THE GAP: Understanding and communicating the business value of co-creation Authors Seikkula Suvi*, Nevmerzhitskaya Julia* & Purola Aletta* *Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Finland

Abstract Co-creation can be broadly defined as cooperation between different actors or stakeholders who share the same overall objective or goal, which is usually related to providing better customer value. While the overall focus of co-creation in the business context is to create new products, services or processes, it is not always clear, what the business benefits of co-creation are and how these benefits can be efficiently communicated to companies. In this article the authors present the benefits of cocreation as they are described in literature, and as perceived by the business owners involved in co-creation processes within the EU-funded Horizon 2020 project CIRC4Life. The analysis of the literature showed that the key business benefits of cocreation are increased creativity, shared knowledge, and better commitment via customer engagement. At the same time, interviews with business owners revealed that while collaboration is perceived as the key element of co-creation, real business benefits are not well known by the companies. The results indicate that unless cocreation directly improves a company’s business and offers simple solutions, it is perceived as a laborious process which requires extra resources. Based on the results, the authors suggest that there is need for relatable and relevant communication of cocreation from a business perspective, and co-creation benefits need to be addressed not only on the general but also on a practical, and a personal level.

Key words: co-creation, business benefits, communication, collaboration


Introduction Co-creation is a collaborative development activity between different actors that leads to shared value creation. Co-creation activities can have many purposes, e.g. to inform a design process, create new ideas, evaluate created solutions or consult decision making (Mattelmäki, Sleeswijk and Visser, 2011, 1, 2, 11, see also Sanders and Stappers, 2008, 6). However, co-creation is not just collaboration in any form. It is, as the name implies, about creating something together, not merely contributing to something (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2014, 288). Since the term co-creation was introduced by Prahalad in his article Co-opting Customer Competence (2000), it has been widely used by the academia, public administration, and businesses alike in the context of development projects. The early definitions of co-creation mainly focused on the co-creation of value by a firm’s customers, but lately co-creation is more often also described as collaboration between various Quadruple Helix actors (Arnkil et al. 2010). This co-creation approach is also referred to as Open Innovation (See, for example, Curley 2016; Salmelin 2013; Curley and Salmelin 2013), or an ecosystemic approach to co-creation. Co-creation is global best practice in tech firms, consultancies and in macro-level collaboration (CCO, 2020). It is believed to bring substantial benefits to participating actors. According to Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010, 15-16), the four key powers of co-creation are increased strategic capital and returns to enterprises; lower risks and costs for enterprises; new experiences of value to individuals; and lower risks and costs for individuals. According to this classification, risk- and cost-reduction are common between enterprises and individuals, which both gain value in their own terms, enterprises in the form of strategic capital and returns and individuals in the form of valuable experiences. At the same time, to induce businesses to give up closed internal development processes in favor of an ecosystemic approach to co-creation, it is essential to communicate the business benefits of co-creation in an efficient way. For example, a common belief is that co-creation helps to lower costs of innovation, but no proper metrics are available for quantifying these benefits, making it hard for companies to understand and calculate the benefits of co-creation. As Hoyer et al. (2010, 292) note: “more research is warranted on the effects of cocreation on firm’s outcomes such as short-term and long-term revenues and profitability.” The focus of this article is on understanding the business benefits of co-creation, especially those relevant to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Research questions affecting the focus are as follows: 1. What are the benefits of co-creation from the business viewpoint? 2. How can the benefits of co-creation be efficiently communicated to SMEs?


The article is structured as follows: first, a literature review is performed on the benefits of co-creation. Second, research results from the qualitative study involving a number of businesses are presented and discussed. Third, the gaps in understanding and communicating the business benefits of co-creation are presented. Finally, the challenges and opportunities presented by co-creation to businesses, especially SMEs, are discussed.

Business benefits of co-creation – literature review This chapter presents a review of co-creation benefits as discussed in existing literature. A systematic thematic literature review (The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, n.d.) was performed in order to analyse the benefits of co-creation. Google Scholar was systematically searched using the key phrases “benefits of co-creation” and “benefits of cocreation”, and the results were limited to works cited at least five times. This turned 89 unique works. From the 89 articles and books selected for the literature review, 39 did not specifically mention a benefit, even though they discussed the need to show the benefits in other ways. To 6 of the articles or books there was no access at the moment of the review, and 6 were discarded, because they did not discuss the business benefits, but other benefits of co-creation instead (such as citizen empowerment in the public sector). 38 articles and books were selected in the end as the basis for the analysis. The complete path from records identified to the records included in the literature review, or the final selection of sources is described in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Flow-diagram of the search strategy.


A qualitative content analysis was performed to the identified sources, using the method of inductive category formation introduced by Mayring (2010a). The thematic analysis or coding of the content was done as suggested by Al Debei and Avison (2010, 361). First ‘keywords’ were assigned to the extracted text, based on what was perceived as the benefit. Next, and also during the assignment of the keywords, the keywords were classified into larger groups, i.e. classes. The grouping was done according to the following rules (adapted from Al Debei and Avison (2010, 36): 1) the keywords in the same class communicate a similar aspect of the concept, 2) their contextual relationships complement each other, and 3) the keywords in a class together communicate a larger compositional aspect of the concept at hand. The review resulted in 145 keywords, or business-related benefits of co-creation, and these formed 19 clusters of benefits. The clusters by no means have clear lines. It can be argued that depending on, for example, the strategic goals of a company, the clusters might look different. It can be said, for example, that growth and opportunities are the results of having more knowledge and creativity. Or that financial gain is a type of added value. Brand advantage and competitiveness might, in a marketing context, mean the same thing. Below (Table 1) is the list of cluster benefits created with descriptions formed based on the benefits in each cluster. Table 1 Co-creation clusters based on the literature review


While many benefits were mentioned only once in the literature, the cluster frequency analysis (Fig. 2) shows that the most commonly mentioned clusters of benefits are creativity, knowledge, and commitment. This can be partly explained by the fact that the selected literature sources focused on customer-centered benefits of cocreation, putting customer satisfaction as the main outcome of co-creation.

Figure 2 Frequency of co-creation benefits mentioned in the literature by cluster

The mentions of benefits collected for this study form a set of linguistic information, which can be visualized by mapping them into an abstract space. This mapping can help get a better grip of the meanings and structures in this space (Widdows, Cederberg & Dorow 2002, 107). Below (Fig. 3) is an attempt at a more visual grouping of the benefits of co-creation. It is adapted from a digital radar created by Bouee & Schaible (2015, 1740014-9).1 The radar was originally created to visualize the enablers of the digital transformation of business models and the related applications. In the adaptation below, the same structure has been used to visualize the benefits of cocreation, moving from the more abstract and general at the center to the more specific and practical at the outer edges.


(For an English version, see Schallmo, Williams & Boardman (2017, 1740014-9)


Figure 2 Co-creation radar (adapted from digital radar created by Bouee & Schaible (2015, 1740014-9)

The innermost section around co-creation contains four classes derived from the data on the benefits of co-creation. The terms inside the circle are rather abstract. Financial gain, for example, can be the results of any of a vast amount of different actions. Mentioning it as a benefit of co-creation, without any indication of how the benefit is achieved, in no way differentiates it from other operations of a business. The middle section in the radar has benefits derived from the data and grouped under the abovementioned classes. What is interesting in Figure 3 above is that it shows how concretely the benefits have been described. For example, financial gain is generally described in very vague terms. Economic benefits can refer to a great deal of things in everyday business. There is plenty of vague terminology like this for financial gains, but not so many concrete examples such as “savings on marketing expenses�, something a company can relate to. By contrast, knowledge has plenty of mentions positioned inside the outermost section. The results of the literature review indicate that while there is a number of benefits of co-creation mentioned, they are abstract, interrelated and hard to operationalize. The co-creation radar can provide a way to structure the benefits from abstract to more practical. However, it is clear from the review that more knowledge is needed on measurable business benefits of co-creation, which can be easily understood by companies.


Research methodology for the case study on the business benefits of co-creation To explore the perceived business benefits of co-creation, interviews with business representatives were conducted for this study. The practical co-creation environment and the co-creation perspective of the article is provided by the EU funded project CIRC4Life. The project aims at developing new circular economy business models in four industrial sectors, using co-creation and living lab approaches to bring end-users and other key stakeholders closer to the product and service development, and to empower them by utilizing the living lab approach in real-life settings. Three in-depth interviews supported by two questionnaires were conducted with representatives of the industrial sector and with business model developers. The goal of the interviews and questionnaires was to collect information on perceptions of and attitudes towards co-creation, rather than to identify a list of benefits. The interview themes were structured around the following key points: 1. Understanding and experiences of co-creation; 2. Perceived benefits of co-creation for own business; 3. Support needed to execute co-creation; 4. Future willingness to engage in co-creation activities. Six of the interviews were conducted during winter 2020, and three follow-up interviews were done in spring 2020 to get a deeper understanding of the perceived benefits and to be able to identify the changes (if any) in the attitudes among the business representatives. The scope and focus for the study were selected based on the CIRC4Life project content concerning the development and implementation of business models in circular economy. All interviewees have participated in the co-creation activities during the duration of the project. However, their knowledge and previous experiences of cocreation vary from no experience (4) to highly experienced (1). The co-creation activities the participants have taken part of during the CIRC4Life project include such activities as an open innovation camp, ideation workshops, concept development and prototyping, and stakeholder co-creation workshops. Interviews were conducted via teleconference facilities. Each interview lasted for about one hour, was held in English, and was then transcribed for the analysis. Content analysis was used for inductive category formation based on the research material (Mayring 2015, 374). Data was analyzed with the help of open coding, grouping, creating categories and abstraction (Elo 2008, 109-110). The open coding resulted in forty six (46) aspects of co-creation, which were then grouped into nine (9) themes. The themes formed four (4) categories which were labeled based on the key elements of co-creation. Finally, based on the categories an empathy map was created (Gibbons 2018) to present interview results in the form relevant to the companies. The empathy map was developed based on Osterwalder & Pigneur (2010) and included the following categories:


• • • • •

Says: What does the stakeholder tell others, what might be in conflict with what he/she thinks Thinks: What is important but left unsaid, what keeps him/her awake Does: What is the stakeholder’s attitude, how does he/she behave in public Feels: What moves the stakeholder Goals: What are the stakeholder’s dreams and aspirations, what does he/she want to achieve (Osterwalder & Pigneur 2010, 131)

Findings on perception of the business benefits of co-creation Based on the analysis of the interviews, the main focus of the businesses in co-creation is: 1) collaboration, 2) gaining new perspectives from stakeholders, 3) the business advantages it can create and 4) the effective use of resources. In interviews conducted later in the project, gaining new perspectives was emphasized even more and this benefit seemed apparent to the business representatives through the co-creative activities they had performed and participated in. Communication needs were identified to help understand co-creation benefits. Collaboration From the 46 categories which emerged from the interviews, nine addressed collaboration as the key benefit of co-creation. This category included benefits related to working together, interacting with stakeholders, interaction and cooperation with actors across value chains, collaboration between parties, involving consumers, improving the process of supply chain actors discussing together their part in enhancing sustainability, working with key actors, need for all businesses to apply the co-creation methods, and sitting down together to discuss how to improve things. Gaining new perspectives from stakeholders Understanding stakeholders and their needs and points of view was the second most frequent benefit of co-creation. This included conveying stakeholder opinions into practices and solutions, taking into account the actors who are influenced by product or service, “knowing the real needs from different stakeholders”, and helping product/service fit end-user needs. Business advantages of co-creation This benefit element was empathized by all interviewees. However, when asked to name examples, participants were only able to provide categories such as helping improve processes, helping improve task efficiency, improving materials use, insights into the product design process, helping co-define materials for a better end of life, can help the need for even better processes, for creating new services. Interestingly, while the category was clearly the most important for the participants, they were unable to provide examples of above categories in their own co-creation activities, and were not able to give numeric values to task efficiency improvement rates, for example.


Effective use of resources Effective use of resources was mentioned in relation to business benefits, but also as a separate category as a barrier to co-creation. In particular, aspects related to lack of resources and time, need for tools that help do co-creation in indirect ways when lack of time and resources prevent use, not always possible to include it in development work effectively, not always time for co-creation and no time to follow nice ideas for the sake of it were the typical issues brought up by the participants. Communication needs The interview results also made apparent that at least the following need to be communicated, concerning co-creation: 1. How to effectively collaborate along the value chain, including not only endusers, but also other stakeholders; 2. How to make use of customer insights; how to collect the insights and how to translate consumer insights into product specifications and/or development needs; 3. How to use co-creation to improve business and 4. How to gather resources for co-creation and collaboration. The empathy map created based on the interview analysis is illustrated in Figure 4 below. It shows that whereas the general attitude seems to be that co-creation is useful and can be used to improve business, it can seem very laborious and it is not clear how to make use of it. The perception of co-creation as needing great resources not always available, which seems to be emphasized in the empathy map, is perhaps related to the incomplete grasp of what co-creation is and how it can be used and scaled based on needs. Often any unfamiliar undertaking can seem laborious.


Figure 4. Empathy map based on interview results (Adapted from Gibbons 2018)

The findings suggest that the business perception of co-creation activities as beneficial is directly connected to its ability to improve business: create new products and services, improve business efficiency, create better use of customer knowledge and help improve resource efficiency. This ability needs to be demonstrated in a practical and simple manner that is relevant to the business operations in which it is intended to be used.

Where is the gap? The challenge of communicating the benefits of co-creation to SMEs is clearly related to the lack of proper business metrics with which to measure co-creation effectiveness. In other words, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what direct result co-creation generates for a company. For example, it can be said that co-creation is followed by an innovation boost, which can make the corporate culture more innovative, but it can as well be that an innovative culture has led to the use of cocreation, which has given a further innovation boost. To take a quote from the data: “The research also finds that co-creation benefits innovation success through the development of new markets, products and new customers.� (Tijme 2010, V). It might be difficult to position innovation success in relation to the development of new markets, products and customer relations.


Generally, it can be said that business benefits help achieve business objectives. On a closer look, however, it seems the benefits of co-creation are an intricate web of attributes that can be attached to co-creative endeavors in various ways and that vary based on the way they are used in an organization. This goes to show that the groupings can also be arbitrary, and change based on focus, as discussed earlier. In addition, the benefits may not always be the same for all stakeholders, the perspectives are not always the same and someone's benefit may be someone else's loss. All this makes discussion on the practical implications of co-creation all the more crucial. Discussion on co-creation on a general level helps create understanding of what co-creation is and what are the underlying principles. It does not, however, help understand the practical implications to a business. These need to be discussed in connection with business objectives and the resulting processes and strategies. Even so, the more practical approach to co-creation needs to be related to a more personal aspect, for example co-creation as used within a certain industry or to tackle a certain challenge. Only this way can co-creation be truly relevant and relatable and yield the benefits attached to it. As stated previously, co-creation is defined as a collaborative development activity between actors that leads to shared value creation, and it can have several purposes, such as to define design drivers and create new ideas, evaluate developed concepts or consult decision making (Mattelmäki, Sleeswijk and Visser, 2011, 1, 2, 1, & Sanders and Stappers, 2008, 6). However, the potential business benefits of applying cocreation are reliant on the tools and methodology used in the process, and the stage of openness the businesses are willing to commit to concerning the framework of Open Innovation (Curley & Salmelin 2013). For example, when customers are merely involved in the process when using their survey results as a basis of the internal development work or observing their response to the internally developed solutions, the full benefits of co-creation can't be potentially reached. Additionally, building open collaboration with customers and business actors from the same field of industry might require a shift from the traditional business mindset to a more open one and repositioning from individual beneficiaries to part of the network, which is a prerequisite for reaching the eco-systemic aspect of co-creation.

Conclusions Co-creation brings a number of benefits, but a challenge has been, that there is not enough understanding of the business benefits of co-creation for small-size businesses, who often lack resources and thorough understanding of direct benefits to their business.


There is a vast amount of benefits that can be categorized in different ways. The benefits each business considers useful depends on the business goals and other focus areas of the business, availability of other benefits, understanding of the concept of co-creation and also the ability to take advantage of the benefits. According to literature, the main themes are creativity, knowledge and commitment. Based on surveys and interviews conducted during the research process, the main benefits related to making processes more efficient, facilitating improvements to products and services, collaboration and customer insight. According to the insight gathered during this research work, effectiveness of the communication on the business benefits of co-creation can be improved by showing the benefits in a practical way, with concrete results and steps to reaching the benefits. The message needs to be tied to the context of the business to make the message more relatable. Some level of adaptability is required due to the variety in the usefulness of the business benefits of co-creation in different contexts. An integral part of the communication on the the benefits is giving advice on how the business benefits can be reached, in order to convince the business representatives that co-creation is worthwhile. The overall understanding of the impact co-creation and open innovation can have on business operations and strategic goals should be broadened, and a co-creative mindset incorporated into the structures of a business to make co-creation more effective. The benefits alone as a list do not tell much in a context where value creation is the joint effort of an ecosystem of actors. Thus, ecosystems should be given more attention when co-creation is discussed. Co-creation can greatly smooth the way in the transformation from linear to circular economy, because reaching circularity requires a joint effort. This effort is a key element in reaching sustainability goals. Acknowledgements This article is based on Master thesis development work by Suvi Seikkula (2020) “Show me the value” – Business benefits of co-creation and how to effectively communicate their value to SMEs which are developing circular economy business models. The authors also gracefully acknowledge the support received from the CIRC4Life project that has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No [776503] for A circular economy approach for lifecycles of products and services –project (CIRC4Life). For more information see


References Azabagic, N. & Karpen, I. (2016). In Calabretta, G., Gemser, G., & Karpen, I. Strategic Design: Eight essential practices every strategic designer must master. Bis publishers, 169-193. Ind, N., Trevail, C., & Fuller, C. (2012). Brand together: How co-creation generates innovation and reenergizes brands. Kogan Page Publishers. Polaine, A., Løvlie, L., & Reason, B. (2013). Service design: From Insight to Implementation. Rosenfeld media. Ramaswamy, V., & Gouillart, F. (2010). The Power of Co-Creation. London: Free Press. Electronic sources Aitamurto, T. (2013). Balancing between open and closed: Co-creation in magazine journalism. Digital Journalism, 1(2), 229-251. Retrieved from: Al Debei, M.M, & Avison, D. (2010). Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 359–376. Retrieve from: Ballantyne, D., Frow, P., Varey, R. J., & Payne, A. (2011). Value propositions as communication practice: Taking a wider view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 202-210. Retrieved from: Barker, R. T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic application of storytelling in organizations: Toward effective communication in a diverse world. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 47(3), 295-312. Retrieved from: Bouee, C. E., & Schaible, S. (2015). Die Digitale Transformation der Industrie. Roland Berger Strategy Consultans und Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie eV, Berlin, 46. Cambridge English Dictionary (n.d.). Rertrieved from: Cetindamar, D., & Kilitcioglu, H. (2013). Measuring the competitiveness of a firm for an award system. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 23(1), 7-22. Retrieved from: CIRC4Life. CIRC4Life - A circular economy approach for lifecycles of products and services. Welcome to CIRC4Life. Retrieved from Edvardsson, B., Gustafsson, A., & Roos, I. (2005). Service portraits in service research: a critical review. International journal of service industry management. Retrieved from: Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62 (1), 107-115. Retrieved from: chnique_would_suit_my_data/attachment/5b28b2364cde265cb649444e/AS%3A639136738316289% 401529393481347/download/Elo+%26+Kyngas+%282008%29.pdf European Commission (2010). Europe 2020. Retrieved from: European Network of Living Labs. What are Living Labs. Retrieved from: Eurostat (2019a). Eurostat regional yearbook. 2019 edition. Retrieved from: Eurostat (2019b). R & D expenditure. Retrieved from: Fournier, A. (2016). What is Co-Creation and Why is it so Valuable? Retrieved from: Frigo, M. L., & Ramaswamy, V. (2009). Co-creating strategic risk-return management. Strategic finance, 5(May), 25-33. Retrieved from:


Gregor, S., Martin, M., Fernandez, W., Stern, S., & Vitale, M. (2006). The transformational dimension in the realization of business value from information technology. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15(3), 249-270. Retrieved from: Griffin, Kendall. Mastering the Art of Selling Service Design: Talking Points to Help Land Your Next Client. (2020.) Retrieved from: Heath, D., Singh, R., Ganesh, J., & Taube, L. (2013). Building thought leadership through business-tobusiness social media engagement at infosys. MIS Quarterly Executive, 12(2). Retrieved from: =15401960&asa=Y&AN=88158122&h=Q3w2opsxdxrb5rkOPL%2FQjkfFhL4t4yHRZjgtSQa%2BAQy75 Q1VRniQG8nzN2Sq8eVXs43vliTrBDBlGCYzA7tbpg%3D%3D&crl=c Hitachi. (2016). Co-creating the Future. Retrieved from: Hoyer, W. D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh, S. S. (2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of service research, 13(3), 283-296. Retrieved from: Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management. Retrieved from: Kennedy, E., & Guzmån, F. (2016). Co-creation of brand identities: consumer and industry influence and motivations. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Retrieved from: Lambert, D. M., & Enz, M. G. (2012). Managing and measuring value co-creation in business-tobusiness relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13-14), 1588-1625. Retrieved from: Leavy, B. (2013). Venkat Ramaswamy–a ten-year perspective on how the value co-creation revolution is transforming competition. Strategy & Leadership, 41(6), 11-17. Retrieved from: Ma, S., Gu, H., Wang, Y., & Hampson, D. P. (2017). Opportunities and challenges of value cocreation: the role of customer involvement in hotel service development. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(12), 3023-3043. Retrieved from: Mayer, R. E. (2005). Introduction to multimedia learning. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, 2, 1-24. Retrieved from: ultimedia+learning&ots=uUBaO3X_Ks&sig=hASNWbPt1Rvcszu9VCkR0cOC0GY Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. A companion to qualitative research, 1, 159-176. Retrieved from: Mayring, Philipp (2010). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken (7th ed.). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Retrieved from: Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer, 365-380. Retrieve from: Monarth, H. (2014). The irresistible power of storytelling as a strategic business tool. Harvard business review, 11. Retrieved from: Osterwalder, A. (2012). Achieve product market fit with our brand new value proposition designer canvas. Business Model Alchemists. Retrieved from:


Pergelova, A. (2010). Connecting customers with the company the role of interactiveness and its effect on performanceb. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Retrieved from: Qiao, F., & Zhang, L. (2011, May). The analysis of factors influencing degree of Co-creation in BC marketing. In 2011 International Conference on Business Management and Electronic Information (Vol. 4, pp. 398-401). IEEE. Retrieved from: Ranjan, K. R., & Read, S. (2016). Value co-creation: concept and measurement. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 290-315. Retrieved from Roser, T., DeFillippi, R., & Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co‐creation mix: co‐creation ventures in distinctive contexts. European business review. Retrieved from: Saarijärvi, H., Kannan, P. K., & Kuusela, H. (2013). Value co-creation: theoretical approaches and practical implications. European business review, 25(1), 6-19. Retrieved from: Schallmo, D., Williams, C. A., & Boardman, L. (2017). Digital transformation of business models—Best practice, enablers, and roadmap. International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(08), 1740014-1 - 1740014-16. Retrieved from: SHARP Agency, The. (2020a). Services. Retrieved from: SHARP Agency, The. (2020b). SHARP Co-create. Why Consumer Ideas Are Better Than Your Agency’s. Retrieved from: Skaržauskaitė, M. (2013). Measuring and managing value co-creation process: overview of existing theoretical models. Socialinės Technologijos, (01), 115-129. Retrieved from: Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2). Retrieved from: Strategyzer. Why use the Business Model Canvas? Retrieved from: Tackx, K., & Verdin, P. (2014). Can co-creation lead to better strategy? An exploratory research. Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Working Papers, 14-027. Retrieved from: Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533. Retrieved from:;2-Z Tijmes, A. H. (2010). Co-creation and firm performance: innovation success enhancing effects of and motives for customer involvement (Master's thesis, University of Twente). Retrieve from: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The. Literature Reviews. The Writing Center. Retrieved from: Vargo, S. L., & Akaka, M. A. (2009). Service-dominant logic as a foundation for service science: clarifications. Service Science, 1(1), 32-41. Retrieved from: Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. In The ServiceDominant Logic of Marketing (pp. 21-46). Routledge. Retrieved from: Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European management journal, 26(3), 145-152. Retrieved from: Velentzas, J. O. H. N., & Broni, G. (2014). Communication cycle: Definition, process, models and examples. Recent advances in financial planning and product development, 117-131. Retrieved from


Vernette, E., & Kidar, L. H. (2013). Co-creation with consumers: Who has the competence and wants to cooperate? International Journal of Market Research, 55(4), 539-561. Retrieved from: Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. (2013, September). Co-creation and co-production in social innovation: A systematic review and future research agenda. In Proceedings of the EGPA Conference, 1333 - 1357. Retrieved from,%20Voorberg,%20Bekkers%20& %20Tummers.pdf Widdows, D., Cederberg, S., & Dorow, B. (2002, September). Visualisation techniques for analysing meaning. In International Conference on Text, Speech and Dialogue (pp. 107-114). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Retrieved from: Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2017). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042. Äyväri, A., & Jyrämä, A. (2017). Rethinking value proposition tools for living labs. Journal of Service Theory and Practice. Retrieved from:


Full Research paper

Living Co-Lab: A conceptual framework to set up and facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations to tackle societal challenges in a living lab setting Authors Kalinauskaite Indre1*, Brankaert Rens1,3, Lu Yuan1, Bekker Tilde1, Brombacher Aarnout1 & Vos Steven1,2 Affiliations 1



Systemic Change group Department of Industrial Design Eindhoven University of Technology

School of Sport Studies Fontys University of Applied Sciences

School of Allied Health Professions Fontys University of Applied Sciences

Abstract The complexity of today’s societal challenges calls for collaborative effort and novel approaches. Living lab is an extremely attractive open innovation landscape for collaborative research and development activities targeting societal challenges. Not surprisingly, living lab literature is saturated with evidence of how (transdisciplinary) collaboration between different scientific disciplines and sectors, and involving the end user, is vital for the living lab success. However, although there is plenty of support for collaboration, in other words – why we must collaborate, today we still lack clear guidelines to direct transdisciplinary stakeholder networks of academics and practitioners through collaboration process in the living lab ecosystem. In other words, we lack answers to the question how to collaborate.? In present paper we propose a conceptual framework to guide stakeholders involved in transdisciplinary collaboration through collaboration initiation phase. We base our framework on collaboration challenges described in the literature, specifically the need for stakeholder alignment, as well as challenges experienced in practice, which we report through exploratory case studies. In proposed conceptual framework we advocate for employing of co-creation methods on a meso and macro layers of a living lab ecosystem in order to collaboratively define living lab scope and strategy and facilitate stakeholder alignment. Additionally, we integrate an iterative approach and a feedback loop in order to account for the dynamic nature of collaboration process and to enable reflection and evaluation.


Key words: transdisciplinary collaboration, collaboration process, co-creation, multistakeholder, living lab, conceptual framework

Submission details Introduction Today no one will argue that a living lab, whether regarded as approach (Baccarne, Logghe, Schuurman & De Marez, 2016), ecosystem (Ballon & Schuurman, 2015), or a milieu for innovation (Ballon, Pierson & Delaere, 2005; Bergvall-Kåreborn, Eriksson, Ståhlbröst, & Svensson, 2009), offers a variety of benefits for research and development activities targeting societal challenges. Although, there is no consensus on the definition of the living lab to date, the multi-stakeholder and the end user involvement is, unarguably, the core element of a living lab approach (Feurstein, Hesmer, Hribernik, Thoben & Schumacher, 2008; Baccarne, Logghe, Veeckman & Schuurman, 2013; Nyström & Leminen, 2011; Schuurman, Mahr, De Marez & Ballon, 2013; Westerlund & Leminen, 2011; Chesbrough & Crowther, 2006; Brankaert, Den Ouden & Brombacher, 2015). As such, the multi-stakeholder collaboration in the living lab projects is considered a requirement for innovation (Baccarne, Logghe, Veeckman & Schuurman, 2013) and is often brought forward using innovation frameworks, such as triple-, quadruple- or quintuple-helix models (e.g., Baccarne, Logghe, Schuurman & De Marez, 2016). Most of the corresponding literature describes the added value of collaboration for innovation, in particular, how collaboration between industry, academic and governmental sectors, promotes knowledge-based economic growth and social development (Etzkowitz, & Leydesdorff, 1995; Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2017; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1998). While the user involvement in collaboration process is often discussed through cocreation, which enables user participation in the development of necessary and useful products and services (Bergvall-Kåreborn, Eriksson, Ståhlbröst & Svensson, 2009). In the living lab literature, scholars mainly explore the impact of collaboration on the living lab organization and success. For example, the nature of collaboration may be used to determine the typology of the living lab (e.g., enabler vs. user driven living labs, Leminen Westerlun & Nyström, 2012; Nyström & Leminen, 2011), while diversity in stakeholder roles may affect the success of collaborative innovation processes (Nyström, Leminen, Westerlung & Kortelainen, 2014). In this line, Edwards-Schachter and colleagues (2012) also suggest that precisely through collaboration processes living labs contribute to the development of public policy and thus may achieve greater social impact. Collaboration is vital for the living lab and challenges in collaboration processes might stagnate or even terminate the developments in the living lab (Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, 2013). Interestingly, however, the dynamic nature of collaboration


processes and the challenges thereof seem to be overlooked in the living lab literature. A lack of theoretical and practical guidelines on how to collaborate – initiate, facilitate, maintain and evaluate the collaboration process between heterogenous group of stakeholders – poses serious challenges in advancing living lab research. In present manuscript we address this gap by examining theoretical and practical challenges of transdisciplinary collaboration. As a result of this exploration, in this paper, we present a conceptual framework to help practitioners and researchers effectively set up and facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations in the complex multi-stakeholder socio-ecological systems, such as living labs. In particular, we focus on the early stages of collaborative initiatives following the decision to collaborate. In the proposed conceptual framework, we stress the important role of co-creation as a means to achieve and maintain alignment amongst heterogenous group of collaborating parties (i.e., stakeholders) in different stages of collaboration. The conceptual framework presented in this paper was designed based on collaboration challenges reported in the literature and examples from practice. The structure of this paper is as follows, we first present the literature exploring the nature and challenges of transdisciplinary collaboration, then we discuss the potential role of co-creation in facilitating transdisciplinary collaboration in the living lab setting. Next, we introduce the exploratory case studies and results thereof, followed by the introduction of a conceptual framework to set up and facilitate transdisciplinary collaboration in a complex socio-ecological context, such as in living labs. We conclude this paper with a discussion of the implications of our contribution to living lab theory and practice.

Nature and challenges of transdisciplinary collaboration Transdisciplinary collaboration allows for integration of different viewpoints, methodologies and approaches in stride with global challenges (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008; Stokols et al., 2008; Brandt et al, 2013). Due to its integrative nature and the fact that it is an iterative process (Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008), transdisciplinary collaboration offers a huge potential to create long-term, sustainable alliances to rapidly respond to dynamic and complex nature of societal challenges (Kelly, Schaan & Joncas, 2002; Stokols et al., 2008), such as improving lifelong health and well-being of all European citizens (Health, Demographic change and Well-being, HORIZON2020). Transdisciplinary collaboration between variety of disciplines and multitude of sectors, however, is not straight forward (Pohl, 2005; Stokols et al., 2008; Lang et al., 2012). In fact, Noris and colleagues (2016) define transdisciplinary collaboration as a “wicked problem”, as collaboration is a very complex process dependent on spectrum of dynamic variables ranging from interpersonal relationships to complex contextual influences (Kaats & Opheij, 2014; Bammer, 2013). Additionally, collaborating parties in academic context might conflict in their research methodologies and/or disagree on individual research frameworks (Brandt et al, 2013; Pohl & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008). In the context of living labs, stakeholders often form a very heterogenous group of professionals encompassing, amongst other


things, different disciplines, sectors, roles and temporal dimensions (Leminen, Niitamo & Westerlund, 2017). The challenge here is how to facilitate collaboration process based on stakeholders’ knowledge, expertise and/or contribution to the project development, rather than a role or function-driven, hierarchical status (Vos, Vandermeerschen & Scheerder, 2016). To overcome collaboration challenges, literature examining the collaboration process acknowledges a variety of essential conditions for successful collaboration, which often starts with creation and adoption of a shared vision (Kaats & Opheij, 2014) in the early stages of collaboration (Anderson & Weitz, 1989; Kelly, Schaan & Joncas, 2002). To ensure that common vision is indeed shared by all, stakeholder alignment on various levels is crucial (Weiner & Alexander, 1998; Robinson et al., 2000). As such, scholars outline the importance of integration of common concepts (e.g., O’Rourke, Crowley & Gonnerman, 2016; Bammer, 2013) and knowledge (Godemann, 2008), creation of shared strategy and values (Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen & Westerlund, 2013), as well as balance of mutual and individual gains (Kaats & Opheij, 2014). The success of overall stakeholder alignment is, however, strongly dependent on how the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, technological, physical environment and political factors (e.g., as individual attitudes and values, levels of mutual respect, differences in inter-organizational culture, affinity with technology, proximity between collaborating parties, and policy) are considered throughout the design, management and implementation of collaboration strategy (Stokols et al., 2008). Although, literature outlines ample conditions and ingredients required for successful collaboration, i.e., achieving stakeholder alignment, we still lack comprehensive frameworks and practical guidelines on how to operationalize the theory, as well as how to evaluate the impact and added value of transdisciplinary collaborations in practice (Schuurman, De Marez & Ballon 2015; Pohl, 2005), for example, in living labs. In this paper we argue that co-creation principles in the multi-stakeholder ecosystems, such as living labs, has a potential to fill this gap in theory.

Co-creation in transdisciplinary collaboration? Co-creation process involving multiple stakeholders has been defined as “a deliberate process that builds upon collaborative behaviors and attitudes, guided by a common purpose, where actors can reciprocally benefit from the co-creation outcomes” (Pera, Occhiocupo & Clarke, 2016, p. 4039). Indeed, given that appropriate tools are provided, co-creation, by definition, facilitates inclusive creative processes, where involved parties develop shared ideas, concepts and solutions to tackle the problems in question (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Evidence suggest that participation in co-creation activities, especially in the public domain, strengthens the feeling of ownership and empowerment (Brandsen, Steen & Verschuere, 2018). In the open innovation context, such as living labs, co-creation is encouraged as it has been shown to foster innovation through, amongst other things, (common) value creation (Salminen, Konsti-Laakso, Pallot, Trousse & Senach, 2011; Gültekin, Bekker, Lu, Brombacher & Eggen, 2016) and developments


of solutions which more effectively respond to societal challenges (Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers, 2015; Brankaert & den Ouden, 2017). Even though co-creation is essential to user-centred and bottom up innovation driven living labs (Pallot, Trousse, Senach & Scapin, 2010), some researchers suggest that it is not clear how co-creation, participation and collaboration are organized in the living lab (Nesti, 2017; Fuglsang & Hansen, 2018). Schuurman and colleagues (2015) place co-creation in the living lab on a micro level, meaning, it is primarily focused on involving citizens and the end users in research and development processes (Dell’Era & Landoni, 2014; Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). Interestingly, with some exceptions (e.g., Matti et al., 2020), to our knowledge, cocreation principles are rarely structurally implemented in shaping and facilitating transdisciplinary collaboration processes in the living labs or living lab alike settings. However, in line with Pera’s and colleagues (2016) definition of co-creation and due to its inclusive nature, we believe that co-creation has a huge potential to facilitate stakeholder alignment in the context of transdisciplinary collaboration.

Collaboration challenges - examples from practice Our approach To obtain input from practice for our conceptual framework, we adopted an exploratory case study approach (Mills, Durepos & Wiebe, 2010). To obtain insights we explored three real-life transdisciplinary collaboration initiatives. The three cases, all in the Netherlands, were selected based on two criteria. The first criterion was collaborative initiative’s compliance with HORIZON2020’s societal challenge Health, Demographic change and Well-being, of which specific objective is to improve lifelong health and well-being of all European citizens. Second, the collaborating initiatives had to either employ or have an intention to employ a living lab approach and methodology in their future research and/or development activities. The anonymized descriptions of each case, stakeholder composition and our role are presented in Table 1.


Table 1: Case study descriptions

Case A: health and active lifestyle park

Case B: healthy university campus

Case C: cluster of Dutch universities for digitalization of healthcare

Description and aim:

Case A is a multistakeholder innovation project kickstarted to develop sports and experience park – a living lab – to support the adoption of a healthy lifestyle and social cohesion in the population in and around this park. It is an innovation project initiated and directed by the municipality of mid-size Dutch town in the south of the Netherlands.

Case B is a bottom up initiative steered and organized by the multidisciplinary team established at one of the Dutch universities. The aim of this initiative is to stimulate and facilitate the campus-wide adoption of a healthy lifestyle in the university population, in and outside work/study context. Living lab approach is seen as a means to implement and evaluate various interventions on this university campus.

Stakeholder Composition:

Multiple stakeholders from variety of sectors – industry, governance, education, non-profit organizations, foundations, and research and academic institutions

Our involvement:

Our university was invited to join the living lab stakeholder network as academic partner to support the initiative in conducting transdisciplinary research and evaluating the societal impact of the initiative. We conducted a set of semi-structured interviews with involved to explore and map the project’s stakeholder network and to understand the underlying common vision within this stakeholder network.

Multiple stakeholders representing universities’ community – academic and non-academic staff (e.g., housing and real estate manager, community manager, sports coaches) and students. The first author of this paper was asked to consult the project team on strategy development towards achieving common vision. We facilitated a co-creation workshop to develop a strategic impact map for this initiative.

Case C is a cluster of representatives of several Dutch universities stemming from a larger national academic network (in the Netherlands) established by the association of universities in the Netherlands. The academic cluster representing case C was brought together to promote and conduct responsible digitalization in healthcare. Living lab approach is broadly considered in various research and intervention activities within this cluster. Multiple stakeholders representing eight Dutch universities – senior and junior academic staff

Our university is a member of this cluster. In 2019 the first author of this paper was asked to facilitate strategic roadmap development process. We facilitated a cocreation workshop to develop a strategic impact map for this initiative.

Results In this section we briefly explore three cases introduced in the previous section to illustrate the challenges that might seriously hinder the collaboration initiation process and/or success of the collaborative initiatives where transdisciplinary approach is crucial for projects’ success. Insights gained through these experiences


contributed to shaping the conceptual framework for approaching collaboration in the multi-stakeholder ecosystems, such as living labs. Case A: health and active lifestyle park We employed a stakeholder safari method (Schell & O'Brien, 2015) to explore and map project’s stakeholder network and to understand the underlying the extent of the common vision within this stakeholder network. By interviewing core stakeholders in the project and by synthesizing information across interviews we learned that this project’s stakeholder network is a very heterogenous group of representatives from various sectors, such as industry, government, education and academia, social work and similar. The individual stakeholders and stakeholder organizations envision themselves playing various roles in this living lab, such as technology provider, enabler and researcher. Naturally, amongst stakeholders we detected a spectrum of different ambitions and interests, as well as variety of reasons for collaboration and involvement – some focused on maintaining societal wellbeing, while the others’ goal was to test their products in the field and speed up market launch. Interestingly, although all interviewed stakeholders unanimously acknowledged that everyone’s involvement is crucial for project’s success, the project was owned by everyone, and at the same time by no-one. Meaning, there was no consensus amongst interviewed stakeholders who is responsible for the facilitation and maintenance of the project development. Not surprisingly, there was no shared understanding about the stakeholder network structure (i.e., who else and why is involved in this project), and we noticed a lack of temporal considerations in the setup of this collaboration, especially considering the dynamics of stakeholder involvement. Finally, we sensed lack of cohesion and were not able to distil a clear common vision. This contributed to our conclusion that in this living lab project, collaboration was treated more as a permanent state, rather than a process. The stakeholder safari suggested the lack of alignment and overview within the stakeholder network, lack of central organization and process management, and that official project coordinators treated living lab project and stakeholder collaboration as a static and linear process. Case B: healthy university campus In the preparatory meetings we learned that project team has a clear vision to make this universities’ campus the most vital campus in the world by the year 2030. Although this vision was shared amongst the project team members, a far-reaching temporal span of 10 years and a very high ambition – to become ‘the most vital campus in the world’ – made common vision rather intangible, ambiguous and difficult to translate into actionable strategic action points. Therefore, to create a strategic impact map, a common vision needed to be translated into number of welldefined and measurable common goals – SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-based goals). In the first part of our co-design workshop, thus, we facilitated generation of SMART goals, stemming from common vision. These goals were later used as a starting point to generate a strategic impact map


providing an overview of five strategic areas (lobbying & networking, vitality research, vitality education, vitality recourses, and vitality awareness) and core activity lines in each area (e.g., Lobbying with university’s executive board, Providing Digital Vitality support). In conclusion, this bottom up initiative initially started with various activities and actions organized by the project team. However, as project grew bigger, the successful interventions achieved more attention and the project team needed to structure their collaboration process and derive the strategy for the future. Although, project team had very clear common vision, before they could draft strategy and plan actions to guide the project towards success, they needed to translate their vision into shared actionable goals. Case C: cluster of Dutch universities for digitalization of healthcare As we started drafting the workshop for creation of strategic roadmap, we learned fast that several core ingredients and conditions necessary to generate the roadmap were missing. For example, the network seemed to not yet have aligned common vision, shared actionable goals, nor the strategy on how they intend to realize the common vision (i.e., strategic impact map). Therefore, we hosted a co-design workshop to guide the network members in generating a common vision, subsequent SMART goals stemming from the common vision, and finally a strategic impact map. The strategic impact map describes six strategic areas (resources; networking & lobbying; privacy & ethics; bridging science, citizens and industry; knowledge dissemination & education; and standardization) and activities in each of these areas (e.g., writing of grant proposals, health & wellbeing initiatives within community). This document helped the network to clarify the strategy towards implementing a common vision and to divide the tasks and projects based on individual and group interests. The outcomes of this workshop will serve as input for generating a roadmap towards implementation of this cluster’s goals and vision in the next stage of collaboration. Lessons learned In summary, every project, living lab, stakeholder and knowledge network is different and will face different challenges depending on how the collaboration process is defined and managed (Kelly, Schaan & Joncas, 2002). In the three example cases above we outlined different and at the same time overlaying challenges that a collaborative initiative might face in the initiation phase of a new project. Drawing from these example cases, it seems that in all of the initiatives, collaboration is seen more or less as a permanent state and not as a continuous process that can grow and learn. Guiding frameworks and supporting tools are necessary to help practitioners and academics grasp the dynamics of collaboration processes in practice. The main misconceptions in the above outlined examples was that collaboration was already well on its way, because various project activities and sub-projects had been already started. However, in reality, since there was no clearly documented strategy, the collaboration from process point of view was still in the initiation phase. As such, we conclude that too little attention was paid at


structuring, organizing and facilitating collaboration from initiation through execution to evaluation phases.



Figure 1: Conceptual framework - stages of collaboration initiation phase

Proposed conceptual framework Based on existing literature and the exploratory case study reported above we propose a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) to successfully set up and initiate collaboration in a complex research and innovation ecosystems, such as living labs. On the one hand, our framework is focused on the initiation phase of collaborative initiatives in the context of living labs. On the other hand, the proposed integration of process dynamics in the collaboration process offers a potential to bridge the early and the advance stages of collaboration through an evaluation process. To be more specific, we argue that the iterative nature of and the feedback loop in the proposed framework, as well as proposed deliverables in each stage (i.e., stakeholder map, common vision, SMART goals, impact map, roadmap), enable tracking, monitoring and evaluation of the collaboration process. The proposed framework is built bottom up, is based on co-creation principles and consists of four stages – stakeholder mapping, scope definition, strategic impact mapping, and roadmap definition. In each stage incremental deliverables proposed in our framework help to transition collaboration from planning towards implementation phase. In the paragraphs below, we describe in more detail each of the stages in our conceptual framework. Additionally, in Table 2 we list required deliverables and suggested co-creation methods to be used in each stage to advance, track and potentially evaluate the collaboration. Stakeholder mapping: In the first stage of the proposed framework, collaboration initiation begins with stakeholder mapping. Stakeholder mapping provides an overview of all relevant stakeholders for the collaborative initiative (e.g., living lab) – partners from academia, industry, government, and the social sector, but also potential target and/or user groups are identified. The individual stakeholder profiles, roles, ambitions, goals and relationships with other stakeholders (e.g., value flows) are then mapped on a stakeholder map. Scope definition: In the second stage, the stakeholder network, mapped in the previous stage is invited to define the scope of collaboration, by creating a common vision and defining SMART goals for the living lab. Co-creation of a common vision enables alignment of expectations, short- and long-term ambitions and individual goals within the heterogenous group of stakeholders. SMART goals allow the stakeholder network to decide strategically on what needs to be done, and when and how to realize the common vision. Strategic impact mapping: In the third stage, the established stakeholder network is invited to generate the strategic impact map. The goal of the strategic impact mapping stage is to enable stakeholders to together determine strategy for the living lab. In this stage stakeholders together evaluate available and necessary capabilities within living lab stakeholder network, create a comprehensive overview of the strategic areas relevant for scope determined in previous stage (e.g., obtaining monetary or knowledge resources, bridging society and science) and determine general activity lines – directions – that the network needs to take in order to accomplish common goals (e.g., to obtain missing resources, expand network, establish physical city labs).


Roadmap definition: In the fourth stage, the stakeholder network uses strategic impact map to determine how previously co-created strategy will be realized. The network is invited to determine required actions, processes and projects, including milestones and expected outcomes that are crucial to realize the common vision over a set time period. These are then aligned and positioned in the chronological order on a roadmap. Stage four bridges the initiation (planning) and operationalization (implementation) phases of the collaborative initiative. In other words, creating a roadmap is the first step to shift the collaboration process from planning to implementing intended goals and activities. Table 2: Methods and deliverables for each collaboration stage Stakeholder Scope definition Strategic impact mapping mapping stakeholder safari, participatory/coparticipatory/coMethods


stakeholder interviews, contextual inquiry, survey (Schell & O'Brien, 2015; Kuniavsky, 2003)

design session, workshop (Bødker, Kensing & Simonsen, 2009)

stakeholder map (visual), comprehensive description of the stakeholder map, including stakeholder relationships and value flows, overview of individual ambitions and expectations about the collaboration

description of common vision and list of common goals extracted from common vision

design session, generative workshop (Bødker, Kensing & Simonsen, 2009; Stappers & Sanders, 2003) strategic impact map (visual); detailed description of strategic impact map

Roadmap definition participatory/cocreation session, generative workshop Bødker, Kensing & Simonsen, 2009; Stappers & Sanders, 2003) collaboration roadmap (visual); detailed description of collaboration roadmap, including projects, processes, activities, resources, and temporal considerations; list of targets and target deadlines; review deadlines

Discussion While today only through collaborative effort we can successfully face urging societal challenges, the dynamic nature of collaboration process is highly overlooked in both, literature and practice. Thus, the question we raise in present manuscript is not why to collaborate, but rather, how to collaborate? We present a conceptual framework to initiate a discussion towards how to account for complexity and dynamics of transdisciplinary collaboration in socio-ecological context, such as living labs. We argue that collaboration process would significantly benefit from an implementation of reflective layer, where through iterative and incremental approach in each stage of collaboration, co-creation principles are employed to support, facilitate, maintain and evaluate the alignment within heterogenous group of stakeholders. In following paragraphs, we discuss various implications and limitations of our work.


First of all, our conceptual framework proposes to kickstart collaboration with stakeholder mapping – a crucial collaboration stage aimed at understanding stakeholder organization. Selecting the right partners to collaborate with is vital for achieving the project goals (Dunne & Browne, 2005). Understanding where these partners come from and how they relate to each other, as well as to the project, is necessary to create and maintain the stakeholder alignment. Stakeholder organization, however, is widely underestimated in practice (Dunne & Browne, 2005). Also, in our exploratory case study all three collaborative initiatives focused little to no attention on mapping and understanding the stakeholder network. We, thus believe, that deliverables proposed in the stakeholder mapping stage of our framework, i.e., stakeholder map, are invaluable tools to understand and monitor stakeholder organization throughout collaboration processes on macro (living lab) and meso (project) levels, defined by Schuurman and colleagues (2005). Furthermore, stakeholder mapping is an excellent approach to understand the balance between common and individual gains as collaboration progresses, especially in collaboration stages focusing on achieving stakeholder alignment through co-creation. Second, scope definition, strategic impact mapping and the roadmap definition stages in the proposed framework are meant to incrementally create stakeholder alignment by directly involving them in strategy development (scope definition and impact mapping), (project) planning (roadmap definition) and/or revision processes (through the feedback loop). In these stages, we propose to conduct co-creation sessions to together with involved stakeholders co-create deliverables meant to track, monitor and evaluate the collaboration process and progress. Although, more research is needed to further develop and validate comprehensive protocols for these workshops (i.e., co-creation) and deliverables thereof, our framework follows literature (e.g., Schuurman, De Marez & Ballon 2015; Pohl, 2005), which is calling for reliable tools allowing practitioners and academics to track and monitor processes, as well as to measure the impact of collaborative initiatives in living labs and living lab alike settings. Next, we would like to discuss, perhaps the most important contribution of our work – how the proposed conceptual framework could bring more coherence in living lab operationalization. As co-creation plays a central role in creating stakeholder alignment, we believe that our framework outlines the opportunities to systematically extend the use of co-creative practices in living lab context from micro to meso (project) and macro (living lab) layers defined by Schuurman and colleagues (2015). As we mentioned in the beginning of our manuscript, co-creation in the living lab currently mainly happens on a micro layer (Schuurman, De Marez & Ballon, 2015). Meaning, it is primarily focused on involving citizens and the end users in research and development processes (Dell’Era & Landoni, 2014; Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). Considering stakeholder alignment is a major collaboration challenge, cocreation on project (meso) and on living lab (macro) layers may benefit collaboration processes on strategic (living lab) and implementation (projects in the living lab) levels. Additionally, such approach provides opportunities to examine and understand how different layers of the living lab ecosystem interrelate; for example,


how living lab strategy (e.g., common vision and strategic impact map) is reflected in practice – running projects and other activities (e.g., roadmap). Finally, such approach could potentially reshape the typical living lab collaborations from project based, to a more sustainable, strategic and long-term alliance-like collaborations. This, however, requires further refinement and elaboration of the proposed conceptual framework. Lastly, we would like to stress that after all, people are the driving force behind any and all collaborative initiatives. Literature suggests (Stokols et al., 2008) that success of transdisciplinary collaborations strongly depends on interpersonal qualities and traits of collaborating parties, for example, openness, innovative mindset, willingness to share and embrace transdisciplinary ethics. As was mentioned earlier, with the right tools provided (i.e., our framework), everyone could be a co-creator (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), however, the effort and personal qualities necessary for preparation and facilitation of the co-creation processes should not be underestimated. The next questions to be raised, amongst other things, should concern who is responsible to organize and facilitate co-creation within multi-stakeholder network to support transdisciplinary collaboration. Limitations The proposed framework is a first attempt to build a foundation for a more extensive framework considering all phases of transdisciplinary collaboration in socioecological systems, such as living labs, and including extensive set of guidelines and tools for collaboration practice. We base this framework on the literature review and examples from practice. The somewhat lower number of explored empirical cases, the lack of longitudinal approach and no validation of our conclusions can definitely be considered as limitations of our work. However, we are well aware that proposed framework is only in the conceptual phase and needs future validation and refinement. This is, perhaps, the major limitation of our paper, which we intend to address in our future practical engagements and research activities.

Conclusions There is an evident need for validated frameworks accompanied by practical guidelines on how to set up and implement transdisciplinary collaboration initiatives in complex socio-ecological contexts, such as living labs. In present manuscript we propose a conceptual four-stage framework grounded in co-creation. Our main conclusion is twofold. Firstly, our framework illustrates the importance of considering the dynamic nature of collaboration process and, thus, the need for reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration, both, in theory and in practice. Second, we show how co-creation on project (meso) and on living lab (macro) layers not only offers a huge potential to facilitate and maintain so needed stakeholder alignment, but also to better understand the living lab ecosystem as a whole. In particular, how different living lab ecosystem layers (micro, meso, macro) are interrelated.


References Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing science, 8(4), 310-323. Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Veeckman, C., & Schuurman, D. (2013). Why collaborate in long-term innovation research? An exploration of user motivations in Living Labs. In 4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013. European Network of Living Labs. Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. (2016). Governing quintuple helix innovation: urban living labs and socio-ecological entrepreneurship. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(3), 22-30. Ballon, P., & Schuurman, D. (2015). Editorial introduction Living Labs: Concepts, tools and cases. Info, 17(4), 1-11. Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Delaere, S. (2005). Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: Examining European practice. Available at SSRN 1331557. Bammer, G. (2013). Collaboration= harnessing and managing difference. The Australian National University. Retrieved June 7 2020 from ngdifference2013.pdf. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Eriksson, C. I., Ståhlbröst, A., & Svensson, J. (2009). A milieu for innovation: defining living labs. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium: 06/12/2009-09/12/2009. Bødker, K., Kensing, F., & Simonsen, J. (2009). Participatory IT design: designing for business and workplace realities. MIT press. Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., ... & Von Wehrden, H. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological economics, 92, 1-15. Brandsen, T., Steen, T., & Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-creation and co-production in public services: urgent issues in practice and research. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), Coproduction and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services (pp. 3–8). Routledge. Brankaert, R., & den Ouden, E. (2017). The design-driven living lab: a new approach to exploring solutions to complex societal challenges. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1). Brankaert, R., Den Ouden, P. H., & Brombacher, A. C. (2015). Innovate dementia: The development of a living lab protocol to evaluate interventions in context. ISM-Info, 17(4), 40-52. Chesbrough, H., & Crowther, A. K. (2006). Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&d Management, 36(3), 229-236. Dell'Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A methodology between user‐centred design and participatory design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137-154. Dunne, K., & Browne, J. Collaboration initiation Practices-Experiences from Case Studies. In 10th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Sevilla, Spain. Edwards‐Schachter, M. E., Matti, C. E., & Alcántara, E. (2012). Fostering quality of life through social innovation: A living lab methodology study case. Review of Policy Research, 29(6), 672-692. Matti, C., Martín Corvillo, JM, Vivas Lalinde, I., Juan Agulló, B., Stamate, E., Avella, G., and Bauer A. (2020). Challenge-led system mapping. A knowledge management approach. Transitions Hub series. EIT Climate-KIC, BrusselsEtzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University–industry–government innovation and entrepreneurship. Routledge. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix--University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST review, 14(1), 14-19.


Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K. D., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living Labs: a new development strategy. European Living Labs-a new approach for human centric regional innovation, 1-14. Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: A key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environmental Education Research, 14(6), 625-641. Gultekin, P., Bekker, T., Lu, Y., Brombacher, A., & Eggen, B. (2016). Combining user needs and stakeholder requirements: the value design method. In Collaboration in Creative Design (pp. 97-119). Springer, Cham. Hakkarainen, L., & Hyysalo, S. (2013). How do we keep the living laboratory alive? Learning and conflicts in living lab collaboration. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12). Kaats, E., & Opheij, W. (2014). Collaboration: A Fundamental Capability in Society and Organizations. In Creating Conditions for Promising Collaboration (pp. 7-35). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Kelly, M. J., Schaan, J. L., & Joncas, H. (2002). Managing alliance relationships: Key challenges in the early stages of collaboration. R&D Management, 32(1), 11-22. Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the user experience: a practitioner's guide to user research. Elsevier. Lang, D. J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., ... & Thomas, C. J. (2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability science, 7(1), 25-43. Leminen, S., Niitamo, V. P., & Westerlund, M. (2017). A Brief History of Living Labs: From Scattered Initiatives to Global Movement. In Research Day Conference proceedings 2017 (p. 42). Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. G. (2012). Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9). Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and public policy, 25(3), 195-203. Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage Publications. Nesti, G. (2015, November). Living labs: a new tool for co-production?. In International conference on Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and Regions (pp. 267-281). Springer, Cham. Norris, P. E., O'Rourke, M., Mayer, A. S., & Halvorsen, K. E. (2016). Managing the wicked problem of transdisciplinary team formation in socio-ecological systems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 154, 115-122. Nyström, A. G., & Leminen, S. (2011, June). Living lab—a new form of business network. In 2011 17th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising (pp. 1-10). IEEE. Nyström, A. G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor roles and role patterns influencing innovation in living labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 483-495. O'Rourke, M., Crowley, S., & Gonnerman, C. (2016). On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 56, 62-70. Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin, D. (2010, August). Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. Pohl, C., & Hadorn, G. H. (2008). Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary research. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 16(2), 111-121. Pohl, C. (2005). Transdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research. Futures, 37(10), 11591178. Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multistakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4033-4041.


Robinson, D., Hewitt, T., & Harriss, J. (2000). Why inter-organisational relationships matter. Managing Development: Understanding Inter-Organizational Relationships. London: Sage & The Open University. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18. Schell, M., & O'Brien, J. (2015). Communicating the UX vision: 13 anti-patterns that block good ideas. Morgan Kaufmann. Schuurman, D., & De Marez, L. (2015). Living labs: a structured approach for implementing open and user innovation. In 13th Annual Open and User Innovation Conference. Schuurman, D., Mahr, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2013, June). A fourfold typology of living labs: an empirical investigation amongst the ENoLL community. In 2013 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) & IEEE International Technology Management Conference (pp. 1-11). IEEE. Stappers, P. J., & Sanders, E. B. (2003, October). Generative tools for context mapping: tuning the tools. In Design and Emotion (pp. 77-81). London: Taylor & Francis. Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American journal of preventive medicine, 35(2), S96-S115. Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes: Towards a conceptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12 december), 6-15. Voorberg, Bekkers & Tummers, 2015 Vos, S., Vandermeerschen, H., & Scheerder, J. (2016). Balancing between coordination, cooperation and competition? A mixed-method approach for assessing the role ambiguity of local sports authorities. International journal of sport policy and politics, 8(3), 403-419. Weiner, B. J., & Alexander, J. A. (1998). The challenges of governing public-private community health partnerships. Health Care Management Review, 23(2), 39-55. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1).


Practitioners Presentation

Fast-Track Living Lab-projects: The Problem-Solution Sprint Authors dr. Dimitri Schuurman (PhD) - imec -

Abstract Today innovators need to be able to quickly respond to the changing environment. Successful innovation requires an open viewpoint taking into account desirability (is there a problem or need worth solving?), viability (is there a possibility to create a viable business?) and feasability (is it possible to create the solution?). This asks for innovation management approaches that provide rapid answers on multiple innovation related aspects for increasingly complex innovation challenges. One popular approach is the so-called 'Design Sprint'. At imec, a world-leading R&D and innovation hub, we have created the Problem-Solution Sprint which combines the agile, time-boxed and process-driven approach from the Design Sprint with the usercentered, multi-stakeholder and real-life aspects of Living Labs. Moreover, this approach also utilizes the Innovatrix-framework and innovation management methodology to systematically validate the most critical assumptions. Based on our experience from 10+ Problem-Solution sprints, we highlight some key findings and lessons learned for Living Lab scholars and practitioners.

Key words: Design Sprint; Innovation Management; Open Innovation; User Innovation; Cocreation; Real-life Testing; Rapid Prototyping; Problem-Solution Fit


Main Problem Statement In our rapidly changing contemporary environment, innovators need to be able to quickly respond to new trends and evolutions. Moreover, successful innovation requires an open viewpoint that takes into account aspects related to desirability (is there a problem or need worth solving?), viability (is there a possibility to create a viable business?) and feasability (is it possible to create the solution?). This asks for innovation management approaches that provide rapid answers on multiple innovation related aspects for increasingly complex innovation challenges. One of these approaches, that is currently gaining a lot of interest from innovation practitioners, is the so-called ‘Design Sprint’. The Design Sprints is a five-day process for answering critical business questions through design, prototyping, and testing ideas with customers. This approach was initially created and developed at Google Ventures and is described in detail in the popular book by Jake Knapp: “Sprint: How to Solve Big Problems and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days”. At imec; a world-leading R&D and innovation hub in nanoelectronics and digital technologies, we have created the Problem-Solution Sprint which combines the agile, time-boxed and process-driven approach from the Design Sprint with the user-centered, multistakeholder and real-life aspects of Living Labs (Almirall & Wareham, 2008; Leminen et al., 2012; Schuurman et al., 2016). Moreover, this approach also utilizes the Innovatrix-framework and methodology (see Schuurman et al., 2019) to keep track of and systematically validate the most critical assumptions.

Methods/Approach We will introduce the structured 5-day format of the problem-solution sprint, that uses our Innovatrix as underlying approach. Day one is all about scoping the sprint challenges and involving different experts. On day 2, the team ‘gets out of the building’ to capture real user needs. Day 3 consists of designing different solutions, also taking into account what has already been done. Day 4 is dedecated to prototyping the chosen solution so on day 5 this solution can be presented and tested with real end-users. We will illustrate this process with practical examples from concrete projects.


Results Based on our experience from 10 Problem-Solution sprints, we also highlight some key findings and lessons learned: what is the right type of problem or opportunity to be tackled by a problem-solution sprint, and when is it too early or too late? How should the innovation team look like? How does a problem-solution sprint fit into the total duration of an innovation management process? What are the advantages compared to a ‘regular’ design sprint?

Interest This presentation is relevant to all innovation management practitioners that wish to learn from other practitioners, and especially to Living Lab practitioners and scholars, as we present an alternative project methodology to the one used in Living Lab organizations. In a problem-solution sprint, the typical methodological elements of Living Labs are present, but the process results in much quicker outcomes.


Practitioners Presentation

Designing a Ubiquitous Artifact for Digital Wellbeing in Everyday Life

Author Suhaib Aslam

Abstract Impulsive smartphone revisitations are a prevalent issue. Yet, such uncontrolled revisitations remain largely untapped in digital wellbeing solutions. To address this gap, this project investigated how to support smartphone users in becoming more in control of their revisitation behaviors. To that end, the “Revisitation Reflector� was developed: a digital wellbeing artifact designed to help users become aware of and reflect on their smartphone revisitation patterns. Fully functioning prototypes of this artifact were subsequently deployed in the field to longitudinally study the role and impact of the artifact. Through the field study, the project uncovered guidelines and future opportunities on designing for digital wellbeing through employing the untapped, pertinent metric of revisitation; and through an ambient, reflective and tangible medium that has so far not been widely adopted for the digital wellbeing domain. The project sparks a new narrative on what it means to design for digital wellbeing.

Keywords Digital wellbeing, responsible design, human-data interaction, ambient interfaces, screen time, tangible data, ubiquitous technology

Presentation Summary The main problem statement Uncontrolled, brief smartphone revisitations are a grave, prevalent issue. Much of typical smartphone usage is shown to consist of short, repetitive revisitation habits which can have dire consequences for mental health. Despite its prevalence, uncontrolled revisitation remains largely untapped in digital wellbeing interventions. This is the case despite the degree of control over device usage forming the centrality of digital wellbeing.

Methods/approach To fill this gap, this project investigated how to support smartphone users in becoming more in control of their revisitation behaviors. To that end, it first explored


how to design digital wellbeing artifacts that can help smartphone users take better control over their device usage. This led to five design principles that entailed designing for: revisitation feedback, lived experience, being reflective, being tangible and being ambient. These principles were then embedded in the “Revisitation Reflector”, a digital wellbeing artifact designed to help users become aware of and reflect on their smartphone revisitation patterns. This artifact uses intuitive, ambient LEDs to display a user’s in-situ, revisitation data collected ubiquitously from their smartphone. Fully functioning prototypes of this artifact were subsequently deployed in the field to study the sensemaking associated with the device, and to study the role, design and impact of the device. This field study was in-the-wild (situated in the participants’ households) and longitudinal.

Results/outcomes Based on the field study, a number of findings were uncovered. The first set of findings were related to how users made sense of the feedback from the Revisitation Reflector artifact. This was about how users appropriated the artifact to themselves, how they tinkered with it and how its feedback was interpreted. It was also about how users perceived the novel metric of revisitation and how they drew their own morality and patterns of meaning from it. Findings related to the artifact’s role had to do with the ways in which the Revisitation Reflector triggered reflection and curiosity-driven inquiry into users’ smartphone usage patterns. It also had to with how the artifact interweaved with the users’ daily lives and how its ambient approach blended with users’ everyday experience. Finally, there were also findings that were related to the role of the artifact. These were about how users perceived the artifact in its tangible, ambient medium–as opposed to a typical digital one (e.g. smartphone wellbeing apps). They also had to with users’ perceptions of the artifact’s design and potential desires for its personalization.

Lessons learned/why is this presentation of interest for the public? Together, these findings provide guidelines and future opportunities on designing for digital wellbeing through employing the untapped, pertinent metric of revisitation; and through an ambient, reflective and tangible medium that has so far not been widely adopted for the digital wellbeing domain. The project will be completely open sourced to help researchers and designers in the field create and research their own digital wellbeing artifacts. It aims to spark a new narrative for what it means to design for digital wellbeing.

Project Supervision This project was part of the author’s master’s dissertation. It was supervised by the following faculty members of the University of Twente: dr. Rúben Gouveia (Interaction Design Group), Edwin Dertien (Robotics and Mechatronics Group), dr. Jelle van Dijk (Human Centered Design Group) and prof.dr. Dirk Heylen (HumanMedia Interaction Group).


Presentation References Afarin Pirzadeh, Li He, and Erik Stolterman. 2013. Personal Informatics and Reflection: A Critical Examination of the Nature of Reflection. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. DOI: Albert Bandura. 1991. Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. (1991). DOI: Alberto Monge Roffarello and Luigi De Russis. 2019. The race towards digital wellbeing: Issues and opportunities. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. DOI: Alexander J.A.M. Van Deursen, Colin L. Bolle, Sabrina M. Hegner, and Piet A.M. Kommers. 2015. Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Comput. Human Behav. (2015). DOI: Antti Oulasvirta, Tye Rattenbury, Lingyi Ma, and Eeva Raita. 2012. Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. (2012). DOI: Digital Wellbeing through technology | Google. Retrieved January 24, 2020 from Eric P.S. Baumer. 2015. Reflective informatics: Conceptual dimensions for designing technologies of reflection. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings. DOI: Eugene G. Bugg and John Dewey. 1934. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process. Am. J. Psychol. (1934). DOI: Fredrik Ohlin and Carl Magnus Olsson. 2015. Intelligent computing in personal informatics: Key design considerations. In International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Proceedings IUI. DOI: Hossein Falaki, Ratul Mahajan, Srikanth Kandula, Dimitrios Lymberopoulos, Ramesh Govindan, and Deborah Estrin. 2010. Diversity in smartphone usage. In MobiSys’10 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. DOI: Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A stage-based model of personal informatics systems. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. DOI: Ine Mols, Elise Van Den Hoven, and Berry Eggen. 2016. Technologies for everyday life reflection: Illustrating a design space. In TEI 2016 - Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Conference on Tangible Embedded and Embodied Interaction. DOI: J Anderson and L Rainie. 2018. The future of well-being in a tech-saturated world.


Jaejeung Kim and Uichin Lee. 2019. Interaction Restraint Framework for Digital Wellbeing. ACM CHI Work. Des. Digit. Wellbeing (May 2019). John Rooksby, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, and Matthew Chalmers. 2014. Personal tracking as lived informatics. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings. DOI: John Rooksby, Parvin Asadzadeh, Mattias Rost, Alistair Morrison, and Matthew Chalmers. 2016. Personal tracking of screen time on digital devices. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings. DOI: Jon D. Elhai, Jason C. Levine, Robert D. Dvorak, and Brian J. Hall. 2016. Fear of missing out, need for touch, anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use. Comput. Human Behav. (2016). DOI: Kai Lukoff. 2012. Digital wellbeing is way more than just reducing screen time. Retrieved January 22, 2020 from Katarzyna Stawarz, Anna L. Cox, and Ann Blandford. 2015. Beyond self-tracking and reminders: Designing smartphone apps that support habit formation. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings. DOI: Kathy Baxter, Catherine Courage, and Kelly Caine. 2015. Understanding your users: a practical guide to user research methods. DOI: Kieran Woodward, Eiman Kanjo, David Brown, T. M. McGinnity, Becky Inkster, Donald J Macintyre, and Athanasios Tsanas. 2019. Beyond Mobile Apps: A Survey of Technologies for Mental Well-being. (May 2019). Retrieved January 22, 2020 from Mary Beth Rosson. Injecting a Positivity Spin into Our Everyday Digital Lives. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Workshop on Digital Wellbeing. Retrieved from Matthias Böhmer, Brent Hecht, Johannes Schöning, Antonio Krüger, and Gernot Bauer. 2011. Falling asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle: A large scale study on mobile application usage. In Mobile HCI 2011 - 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. DOI: Rebecca Gulotta, Jodi Forlizzi, Rayoung Yang, and Mark W. Newman. 2016. Fostering engagement with Personal informatics systems. In DIS 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Fuse. DOI:


Rúben Gouveia, Fábio Pereira, Evangelos Karapanos, Sean A. Munson, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2016. Exploring the design space of glanceable feedback for physical activity trackers. In UbiComp 2016 - Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. DOI: Simon L. Jones, Denzil Ferreira, Simo Hosio, Jorge Goncalves, and Vassilis Kostakos. 2015. Revisitation analysis of smartphone app use. In UbiComp 2015 - Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. DOI: Sunny Consolvo, Predrag Klasnja, David W. McDonald, Daniel Avrahami, Jon Froehlich, Louis Legrand, Ryan Libby, Keith Mosher, and James A. Landay. 2008. Flowers or a robot army?: Encouraging awareness & activity with personal, mobile displays. In UbiComp 2008 - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. DOI: Tingxin Yan, David Chu, Deepak Ganesan, Aman Kansal, and Jie Liu. 2012. Fast app launching for mobile devices using predictive user context. In MobiSys’12 Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services. DOI: Ulrik Lyngs, Kai Lukoff, Petr Slovak, Reuben Binns, Adam Slack, Michael Inzlicht, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 2019. Self-control in cyberspace: Applying dual systems theory to a review of digital self-control tools. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Proceedings. DOI: Ulrik Lyngs. 2019. Putting Self-Control at the Centre of Digital Wellbeing. 2019 ACM CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (Position Pap. (2019). DOI: 3300361.


Full Research paper

Social Prescribing in Australia: How the Bottom-up Model of Citizen Science Can Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in Health Service Design Sonja Pedell1, Ann Borda2, Alen Keirnan1 1 2

Swinburne University of Technology, Future Self and Design Living Lab University of Melbourne, Centre for Digital Transformation of Health

Abstract Originating in Europe, social prescribing aims for a more holistic health approach to increase social integration. Through a feasibility study on introducing social prescription in Australia we demonstrate that a bottom-up approach is necessary to understand how to involve healthcare providers, staff, and service users in designing a social prescribing service. We framed the involvement of the multiple stakeholder groups as one informed by citizen science to understand how to overcome organisational barriers. The result is a concept proposal that suggests service pathways for a social prescription based on the healthcare providers’ and their stakeholders’ values and needs. We suggest that citizen science needs to support evaluation of service impact and sustainability as part of a complex learning system. Our approach can inform other health related services giving future stakeholders a stronger voice in the design, implementation and maintenance of health services that extend the traditional medical model of health.

Key words: Social prescribing, citizen science, co-design, health services


Current Research Social prescribing ‘Social prescribing’ is a non-medical referral that links community services with people who are at risk, or experiencing isolation or depression (Carnes et al., 2017). Prescribed activities can fall within ‘social’, ‘physical’ or ‘economic’ categories (Woodall, et al., 2018) and aim to improve self-care within the community (Moffatt et al., 2017). The literature describes the characteristics of social prescription, stakeholders and models of delivery (Carnes et al., 2017; Woodall et al., 2018; Moffatt et al., 2017; Bertotti et al., 2018; Kimberlee, 2015). Accordingly, the health client journey involves general practitioners working with health clients to determine their level of wellbeing and social interests. In a holistic model of social prescribing, allied health clinicians also play a role in referring health clients to community services. Next, a community connector in collaboration with the health client develops an action plan detailing goals and schedules. Community connectors (Moffatt et al., 2017) are people who locate community services for health clients also develop care and well-being plans. A community connector will have strong relationships with umbrella organisations and use their interpersonal skills to help build their health clients confidence and independence. The literature shows promising evidence to the benefits of social prescribing, primarily in the United Kingdom (Carnes et al, 2017; Woodall, et al. 2018; Moffatt et al. 2017; Bertotti et al. 2018; Kimberlee, 2015) and in Canada (Alliance for Healthier Communities 2020). Social prescribing can involve a variety of activities designed to support people with a wide range of social, emotional or practical needs. Services often focus on improving mental health and physical well-being, for example, volunteering, arts activities, group learning, gardening, healthy eating advice and sports (Polley et al, 2017. Husk et al 2019; Kings Fund 2019). Consequently, social prescribing is located at the crossroads of holistic health, community care and social engagement. Models are still in their infancy and yet to be adopted in Australia but there are strides towards adoption in some form. In November 2019, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, in partnership with the NHMRC Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability, held a national roundtable discussion on social prescribing which was perceived as a potentially valuable addition to the existing range of healthcare options in Australia (RACGP 2020). Particularly with the COVID-19 predicament, it has been seen as a timely catalyst for Australia to consider the emerging practice of social prescribing in responding to some of the harmful mental health outcomes of isolation that may not be suitably addressed with conventional medical care (Wells 2020).


Citizen Science and bottom up participation Citizen science combines equal collaboration between citizen groups as coresearchers with academic researchers. Such an approach enables participants to address shared issues from the bottom up, with formal research methods. Codesign, as a participatory design process used in citizen science, collectively involves participants and stakeholders working together to design a new product or service, making full use of participants’ knowledge, resources and contributions, to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). In community based participatory research (CBPR), participants provide researchers with advice concerning study design and priorities, recruitment, and data interpretation and dissemination (Israel et al, 1998; Hicks et al, 2012; Minkler 2014). The need to ensure ownership and control over local knowledge is relevant in situations of CBPR that inform wider citizen science practices (den Broeder 2017). Citizen science is becoming more pervasive in participatory health contexts (Rowbotham 2019; Wiggins 2019; Borda et al, 2019). Citizen science in healthcare domains however, is not readily defined as a separate practice or associated with a specific framework or schema (den Broeder 2017; Eitzel et al 2017). Citizen science projects involving human health and participants can be viewed within a family of participatory research, such as action research, community-based participatory research (CBPR), patient and public involvement (PPI), self-quantification, crowdsourced health research, among other practices (den Broeder 2017; Rowbotham et al, 2019; Wiggins and Wilbanks 2019; Borda et al, 2019). Citizen science approaches are often considered systematic, scalable methods of publicbased data collection, knowledge translation and evaluation (Katapally 2019), which is needed when introducing a health-related service into a complex ecosystem. Generally, citizen science initiatives have been differentiated through the extent of responsibilities that participants undertake, such as collecting and analysing data (contributory) and interpreting and disseminating findings (collaborative). Health-based citizen science projects are instigated by professional healthcare providers and/or researchers in which participants are supporting tasks in a study-based activity; however, community scaled participatory research projects can be a collaborative activity. In the latter example, a higher level of ownership may be associated with co-creation in which healthcare providers and/or researchers and patient participants work together across several investigative processes. A broadening of this framework is citizen-led, or what might be termed as ‘extreme citizen science’ approaches which aims to provide tools and methods to enable communities to develop participatory health projects to address issues of concern (Haklay et al 2013).

Citizen science and Co-design relating to health Co-design, as a participatory design process used in citizen science, collectively involves participants and stakeholders working together through active participation from the design stage of research to the interpretation of research results and to their transformation into concrete actions. This process makes full use of


participants’ knowledge, resources and contributions, to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency in health research or service design (for example den Broeder 2017; Wiggins and Wilbanks 2019). Generally, citizen science initiatives have been differentiated through the extent of responsibilities that participants undertake, such as collecting and analysing data (contributory) and interpreting and disseminating findings (collaborative). Health-based citizen science projects are instigated by professional healthcare providers and/or researchers in which participants are supporting tasks in a study-based activity; however, community scaled participatory research projects can be a collaborative activity. In the latter example, a higher level of ownership may be associated with co-creation in which healthcare providers and/or researchers and patient participants work together across several investigative processes. A broadening of this framework is citizen-led, or what might be termed as ‘extreme citizen science’ approaches which aims to provide tools and methods to enable communities to develop participatory health projects to address issues of concern (Haklay et al 2013). Co-design is associated with patient-centred health research organisations and consumer health networks as a trusted method of stakeholder engagement (Pedell et al 2018). National agencies at the forefront of public and community involvement in health research include INVOLVE in the UK, the Patient Centred Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) of the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. and the Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Consumer and Community Health Research Network based in Western Australia is an example of a practical implementation of a service, leading programs and resource development to promote awareness and support. Recently the Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association (AHHA) and Consumers Forum of Australia published a toolkit on experience-based co-design promoting this methodology as a means of bringing “health workers and consumers together in an authentic and equal partnership to co-design care to deliver an improved experience” (Dawda and Knight 2017). Other related methods are co-production which involves producing a product or service together following the co-design phase (Osborne 2016) and co-creation which usually refers to both co-design and co-production taken together (Greenhalgh et al 2016). Such health agencies highlight the need for participatory methods that involve the equal partnership of healthcare professionals, citizens (e.g. health clients, patients and their carers), and other potential ‘designers’ of the service (e.g. researchers, healthcare IT, healthcare vendors) (Ward et al 2018). Health Impact Assessment (HIA), for example, is an estimation of expected health impacts of a proposed policy involving citizens’ participation as a core element. In general, the process of designing and building a health project remains a complex undertaking in inclusivity terms, requiring relevant human resourcing and social aspects to sustain user motivation and achieve meaningful project goals (Reeves et al 2017).


Michael Schrage (2008) notes “Innovation is not innovators innovating but customers adopting.” (p.91). Innovation should only be measured by the value it creates to people’s lives. Hence, what often is missing is an approach that spans from designing to impact measurements of holistic health services that include the voice of the users. This is a key motivator of the present study and in the selection of methodologies.

Feasibility Study Aims While the literature shows promising evidence to the benefits of ‘social prescribing’ primarily in the United Kingdom, Australia has yet to recognize a formal social prescribing model of healthcare delivery. Within this gap, community organisations are well positioned to pioneer Australia's first social prescribing service offerings. The aim of our research was to develop a social prescription model that can be trialed in Australia, leveraging the current service offerings of a community health provider - one of our Living Lab partners as part of a holistic health model. The study methodologies supported the feasibility study workshop processes, identification of current barriers and opportunities and the design output of a social prescription offering. The community health provider already offers different portfolios (medical, clinical and community portfolio) of services and hence is uniquely positioned to use existing portfolios as springboard to deliver a social prescribing to their clients. However, the partner was unsure how such a service should be set up and introduced to the community to receive acceptance and longer-term adoption as well as how its’ success can be determined. Hence the feasibility study had the following agreed aims to explore how: 1. To identify where in the organisation a social prescription might be delivered 2. To investigate non-medical success parameters to understand acceptance for the targeted client base of the community health provider 3. To conceptualise what the journey might look like for the service user (service blue print) 4. To maintain and evaluate the service

Co-designing a Social Prescribing Service in Australia (Overview) The study recognized the importance of health clients as citizens and coresearchers in the design of holistic healthcare solutions. Interventions, as well as decision-making, are more effective when the target group is engaged in an equitable partnership (den Broeder 2017). Based on the close relation between the use of participatory methods in the design of health services and the later success of these services we opted for a co-design process. In order to fulfil the four aims for this project we chose the following methods to facilitate co-design activities as part of a larger bottom-up framework of citizen science. The co-design process took


place over the course of several iterative engagements, e.g. interviews and workshops. Methods: 1. Mapping the existing organisation from a client and staff point of view – iteratively explore and refine the existing ecosystem with a focus on possible pathways. (interviews) 2. Explore resources, enablers and barriers for a social prescribing service (focus group with staff) 3 Explore emotions, values, qualities and goals of a social prescribing service with potential clients (focus group with clients) 4. Co-design a conceptual scenario-based model with key stakeholders (focus group with staff) 5. Citizen science as a model to maintain participatory approaches to shape social prescribing services as part of a bigger learning system (outlook on evaluation and sustainability) Recruitment and data collection: We conducted seven interviews with the organisation’s staff from different service areas to better understand the whole ecosystem. Building on the interviews and gained knowledge of the ecosystem two co-design workshops with health practitioners and one client workshop were facilitated to understand the goals of the respective stakeholder groups and the user journey throughout the social prescribing service. All three workshops were designed for the results to cascade into the next, ensuring the co-design process was open and flexible. For more details on data collection techniques and recruitment refer to Keirnan and Pedell (2020).

Mapping the health care provider organisation (interviews) General practitioners, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, and other allied health professionals were seen as the first point of call for health clients seeking access to a social prescription. Hence the first step was to interview these in onehour semi-structured interviews in order to better understand the organisational structure and communication pathways. Silos preventing referrals across organisational portfolios were the primary barriers identified in the organisational structure. Two assumptions were revealed across the practitioner interviews. The first assumption is that the clinical portfolio was to play an essential role referring health clients from the medical and allied health portfolio, to the services within the community portfolio. For example, a socially isolated person might see the general practitioner about their health. Here, the general practitioner’s role should identify the isolated individual at risk and refer onward to the range of social services within the community portfolio. The second assumption concerned the general practitioners and their role in “writing” the social prescription. Participants expressed that a general practitioner works with the health client to reveal their interests, developing a wellbeing action plan.


The interviews revealed barriers that challenge these two assumptions. While the interview data confirmed three portfolios which should ‘ideally’ refer services to each other, barriers preventing communication and health client transfers where revealed. The rapid growth of the organisation was pointed out as a potential barrier to communication among the three portfolios. One participant said: “because [the organisation] is so large now, you don’t necessarily know what is going on” and “I bet they won’t know about us and what we are doing here”. Instead, health practitioners tended to refer to those whom they knew within their department, or of a similar practice. For example: “When you’re a clinician you often just refer to other clinicians, so a physio might refer to an OT, or an OT might refer to a social worker or speech pathologist”. As result, silos within the organisation are reinforced and portfolios become even more isolated from each other. One community health practitioner described this phenomenon as being akin to an island: “We’ve been part of [this organisation] for 5 years, but there has never been that connection. We have been like an island”. While sharing information was discussed as an important avenue to bridge the two portfolios, there were reservations about whether it might be an effective tool. “Maybe they need to understand our programs or have our brochure in their office. So, when someone says I am lonely, they can say, here you go! That said though, we have OTs and dieticians come and see and say our programs are fantastic, but the referrals still don’t come”. It was highlighted that structural barriers affecting the referral pathways within the organisation.

Explore resources, enablers and barriers (staff workshop) While insights about silos, and general practitioner roles emerged from the interviews and were visualised in a rich picture, a workshop was arranged to identify the in more detail barriers, enablers and resources in relation to a future social prescribing service. The workshop involved health clinicians adding to the rich picture and revealed pathways within the organisation that prevented the health client from moving from one portfolio to another. Furthermore, key departments such as the intake team and mental health team were added to the rich picture, revealing new opportunities to direct clients. Table 1 shows the barriers and enablers to a social prescription service of the community health provider. In particular, the lack of mental health awareness was discussed as a whole of organisation barrier which also would affect the referral onward to a social prescription service. Other barriers included time poor staff, broken pathways and channels, but also an assumed limited motivation and interest of clients.


Participant The Service User

Enabler Patients should have freedom to choose and access a social prescription service or referral from all departments within the organisation.

General Practitioner

GP’s and health clinicians do have access to hard to reach patients who are at risk of social isolation. Here, they can be leveraged to refer patients for a social prescription.

Allied Health

Allied health practitioners establish meaningful relationships with their clients. Often, they go on home visits and are aware of life changes that may affect their client. They can act as outreach within a social prescription model. The intake and reception teams have a strong awareness and access to information about all offered services. The neighbourhood house team are accessible, inclusive and culturally aware. They can provide pastoral care for clients who find it difficult to attend their social prescription. The mental health team offer two categories of services that can provide support with pastoral care and counselling. Both services can be used to wrap around the service recipient. Mental health training can be run. Strong siloed relationships have formed throughout the organisation. These can be leveraged to bring about

Intake and Reception Neighbourhood house

Mental Health

Whole organisation

Barrier Patients are frustrated having to recount their story multiple times. They are time poor, looking for a quick fix and often access care when their life or health is compromised. Often, they are unable to find their way around the organisation. As a result, their sustained participation in a social prescription is compromised. General practitioners are time poor. As a result, they are often unaware of the different services within the organisation such as offered by the mental health. This makes it difficult to for GP’s to write a social prescription. High GP turn around results in difficulty in providing continuity of care, while the medical system does not cater for a social prescription as a billable item. -

Low staffing numbers compromise the intake team and their ability to deliver a social prescription. The goal directed care plan is more about box ticking than learning about the individual and what they want out of their social prescription. -

The organisation must acknowledge human and economic diversity and bridge the clinical and community portfolio. Also, funding models and time consuming


awareness about social prescriptions.

administrative activities burden staff. The organisation needs training on mental health to be more aware.

Table 1. Barriers and enablers in the current organisational structure for a future social prescription service

Values expected from a social prescribing service (client workshop) The staff interviews reinforced the literature findings that social prescribing is not based on a traditional medical model: “Social prescribing is looking at someone as a whole. It’s a holistic approach to talking about someone’s care” and “Ways they can prescribe things for them to do socially that will assist them for their health rather than just drugs they can take”. Importantly its success is determined on how people want to feel and engage: “…ways that people can help themselves to improve their wellbeing or engage in an activity to help them benefit their mood”. Consequently, the involvement of future service recipients is key to the social prescription concept. A client workshop with community members was organized to address this. A two-hour workshop with six potential clients revealed important insights about emotions, goals, tangible aspects of a social prescription and importantly underlying values. The workshop with clients produced four outcomes. The first outcome is describing the different values of a social prescription. It shows the different characteristics and values of a social prescription that clients would like to have embedded into their experience (Table2). The second outcome, a goal model, accompanies the values demonstrating the preferred emotions, qualities and functions that a health client would like to interact with during their social prescription service (Figure 1). Third, the stakeholder workshop identified people in the community who might benefit from engaging with such a model. These included new parents, people immigrating or new to Australia, older people, professionals working long hours, people with a mental illness, people who don’t know how to socialise. Concluding the workshop, the clients then conceptualised as a fourth outcome different tangible and intangible features which support a client throughout their social prescription journey as illustrated in Figure 2. Four values were deemed necessary if clients were to engage with a social prescription offering by the community health provider. These are summarised in Table 2. Value Connected

Description I want to feel connected to my health service through regular check-ups from my provider. It should help me integrate into my community where I can access different services. It should be intergenerational.





I want to feel confident in the abilities of the provider and my diagnosis. My service should be transparent, so I know my course of action. It should be private & confidential. I want to determine my own level of openness. I want to feel safe and not be stigmatised. I want to be able to determine my own course of action, though have my preconceptions about the type of care I receive challenged. I want to feel heard, understood and respected. My interest should be known, and the service should be straightforward, simple and not overwhelming to use. I want to be able to share my interests with other people.

Table 2. Client values for a social prescribing service A sense of connection to the greater community was described as integral to the health journey. This might be a simple referral to a wider network of activities outside of the organisation after a period of time. Clients also wanted to feel comfortable with their clinicians and not stigmatised. A sense of knowing that the health provider is aware of mental health illness and how to diagnose and treat such illnesses were important. Finally, clients wanted a real sense of having a tailored approach to their social prescription. Upholding these values were associated emotions, qualities and functions as show in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Goals that a social prescribing service should do according to the community. The left side represents the view of the organisation and the right side the client view.


In Figure 2, the different ways people would like to engage with a social prescribing service are outlined. These were not Where some people may prefer a diary to record their social prescription journey, others might prefer a conversation. Where some may prefer a check-list to record their progress, others might prefer a diary.

Figure 2. A description of the types of resources needed for a social prescription services according to community members.

Social prescribing concept demonstrated through scenarios (staff workshop) A final co-design workshop with staff confirmed the values and different categories of service recipients and which determined the service concept based on the goals and values of the community. To demonstrate components of the service concept, five scenarios were produced by participants. The scenarios capture the interactions and rationale behind a more formal service blueprint for feedback to the community, and to inform the program logic (Table 3).


SCENARIO 1: The Champions emerge Suellen is a general practitioner at the local health care provider. She might see 20 clients per day. The Director of medical practice suggested to Suellen that she participate in a training program about mental health, social isolation and a new service offering across the whole of the organisation. Suellen agreed to participate and emerges as a social prescription ‘champion’. She disseminates her new knowledge where she can, inserting social prescription chit chat in the lunchroom kitchens and at meetings. Thanks to Suellen, other doctors are now more prepared to refer clients onward to begin their social prescription journey. Design rationale: Mental health awareness across the whole organisation is improving. However, some health clients can fall through the cracks should they see a specialist who does not know or is unable to identify the symptoms of mental health illnesses. The champion’s role is to equip themselves with knowledge about social prescriptions and mental health, all while advocating within their department to raise awareness about the service. SCENARIO 2: Tim goes to the doctor. Tim is 84 and lives alone. When Tim’s partner died he became depressed. He lost interest in playing cards with his friends and stopped leaving the house. Over time, Tim’s letter box started to pile up and soon after, his neighbour called the police for a well-being check. Realising Tim was not in any physical harm, the police suggested he visit the doctor for a check-up. Tim revealed to the doctor he lived alone with no family or friends. Concerned and aware of the issues around isolation and mental health, the doctor suggested Tim needed more social time and outlined briefly how his local health care provider could help. Design rationale: General practitioners are time poor and unable to write a social prescription under Medicare’s billable items. As a result, they are unable to bill their time and service. This is a deterrent for general practitioners to engage the service. Instead, asking Tim to fill a slip with his time preference in the doctor’s office, and then instructing Tim to return his pink slip to reception relieves the general practitioner of answering questions outside of the scope of their work while still securing the next touch point in Tim’s journey. SCENARIO 3: A community connector calls Tim. Expecting a call from the local health care provider, Tim sat near the phone to be sure he heard it ring. Just after lunch, Tim’s home phone rings. According to his green slip, the person on the other line was Bill – the community connecter. Bill introduces himself, detailing why he is calling and offers time for Tim to ask questions. Toward the end of the call, Bill and Tim lock in a time to meet at Tim’s house. Design rationale:


Clients reiterated over and over the value of knowing the steps and touchpoints ahead of their journey. The green slip that was returned to Tim at the reception desk not only indicates who from the organisation will be calling, but also offers prompts to record any questions they might have prior to the call and space for notes. SCENARIO 4: Community connector and Tim. The day had arrived for Bill to meet Tim. Tim had cleaned his house and went out to buy tea and biscuits. Bill arrives, and most of the discussion was about Tim’s wife, Mary. He disclosed to Bill that Mary was an avid gardener, winning prizes for her speciality plants and fruit trees. Tim invited Bill to the backyard where once stood a healthy green garden of Mary’s making. Tim told Bill how he feels ashamed that he couldn’t honour Mary’s legacy wishing he could bring Mary’s garden back to life. Bill suggested he join the Neighbourhood House Garden Club. Once a week the group meets and tends to the garden and runs workshops. Bill assured Tim that transport would be arranged and that he would introduce Bill to the person running the course. At the end of the meeting, Bill told Tim to look out in the mail for an information pack outlining the program he will join, a pre-paid cab voucher, a diary, and other information about his tailored service. Design rationale: As there is no one-size fits all approach to interacting with a social prescription at the local health care provider, the community connector plays a crucial role in determining what the client needs. Here, the community connector should empathise with the client and aim to suggest a program that meets their goals and needs. The purpose of the conversation is to tailor a program to each person as outlined in the values derived from the client workshop. SCENARIO 5: Tim goes to class. At precisely 9:20am the cab arrives at Tim’s house to take him to his first gardening class. As promised, when he arrives, he sees the community connector standing out the front. Bill introduces Tim to the class instructor, Sumitra. Sumitra welcomes Tim to the garden and shows him around outside. Tim recognises some of the plants as ones grown in his backyard. A moment of joy and a wave of happy memories consume Tim. He is eager to learn the skills to bring Mary’s garden back to growth. Apprehensive and nervous at first, Tim’s nerves are calmed when he discovers that another gardener shares his experience, having also recently lost his wife. At the end of the garden workshop Sumitra approaches Tim with Bill, asking for his feedback and if he enjoyed himself and asks Bill to book him in for two more classes. Bill records Tim’s feedback, parting ways. At home, Tim opens his backyard door and smiles at his garden, promising Mary that it will be regenerated. Design rationale: Clients may be experiencing social anxiety, or be fearful of new social environments and people. A warm handover between the community connector, client and class instructor is one way to promote and build a trustworthy partnership supporting the client to participate.


Towards evaluating and sustaining a social prescription trial (through citizen science and learning healthcare systems) The aim of the program logic (part of the service blueprint) was to capture whether the inputs, activities and outputs lead to the desired outcomes according to the results from the client and staff consultation. To evaluate the outcomes of a social prescription trial service, and refine the service to as sustainable model meaningful data, capturing the successes, failures, and positive or negative journey experiences for all stakeholders are necessary. Values and client goals become key to the evaluation over time. Means of engagement with the services also form the basis for collecting client data for evaluation (see Figure 2). Table 3 provides formalises the five social prescribing scenarios into activities, inputs and outcomes as coproduced by participants in the workshop. This table builds the basis for a wider community consultation approach formed by citizen science and learning health care systems. A learning healthcare system (LHS) is broadly defined as:�‌one that is designed to generate and apply the best evidence for the collaborative healthcare choices of each patient and provider; to drive the process of discovery as a natural outgrowth of patient care; and to ensure innovation, quality, safety, and value in health care.� (Institute of Medicine 2007). Since this original definition, there is an increasing recognition of the need to engage with various stakeholders including patients, participants, health care providers, and policy-makers among others to understand how to drive a sustainable LHS (Platt et al 2020). The bottom-up approach of citizen science involving diverse stakeholders and localised problem-solving is an effective way to translate knowledge to a broader audience and to support iterative evaluation processes within an LHS (Van Brussel and Huyse 2019). A post-implementation stage of evaluation, for example, offers opportunities to engage citizens to monitor problems, and to facilitate an open exchange of various perspectives, and thereby improve mutual understanding without some of the limitations of formal research methods. In this way, citizen science participation can be more open among other methodological approaches in that the citizens do not always need to be preselected by researchers or healthcare providers (Sauermann et al 2020). This allows for an agile model that focuses on evolving community needs rather than producing generalisable knowledge and which closely aligns with the notion of an LHS (Petersen et al 2020; Platt et al 2020). The integration of citizen science approaches in the co-design model can support a more robust transition to a sustainable entity (Sauermann et al 2020).






Service user.

Meets with their health practitioner.

Agrees to participate in a social prescription.

Meets with the community connector. Participates in a social activity.

Interests are identified and goals recorded. Learns a new task or meets other people.

The health client submits their pink slip and receives a green slip. Interests and goals are valid and met. Improved quality of life and/or wellbeing.

Meet with the service user.

An inventory of interest is developed after a conversation. Build a wraparound support program and have programs booked.

Community connector.

Collect feedback and attendance data after each class.

A collection of data informing the progress, barriers or concerns expressed by the service use.

A tailored program that can be compiled for the service user. Social activities are booked and are aware of the service user and their attendance. Tools and evidence to adjust or redesign the program tailored to the health client.

The health practitioner

Identifies the symptoms of social isolation or mental health illness.

Makes a decision to refer the patient to a community connector.

The health client agrees to participate in a social prescription.

The reception team

Receives a pink slip from the health client.

Logs in a dedicated community connector schedule the intent for a call back.

Exchanges the pink slip with a green slip.

The Champion

Participates in mental health training.

Become aware and confident in their capability to advocate the service within their service department. Staff within each service department become aware of mental health illness symptoms and are equipped to refer health clients to a social prescription.

Advocates social prescriptions at all instances within their service department. The health client can receive a social prescription from all service departments within the health organisation.

Liaise with other AHC service.

Advocates a social prescription within their service department.

Table 3. Program logic to evaluate the social prescription.

Conclusion In view of growing public investments in citizen science initiatives in Australia and globally (Pecl et al, 2015), it should be considered more explicitly—if, and how— citizen science could help make the process of social prescribing more inclusive with greater ‘agency’ of its participants in terms of contributions and general participation in determining the efficacy of the process. If we are to tackle the complex challenges that face population health in Australia, for instance, obesity, or mental health, or the impacts of climate change and social isolation arising from COVID-19, then new avenues are needed to capture the energy and attention of citizens who are affected but not adequately


represented or engaged. This provides a particular opportunity to guide meaningful healthcare redesign. The feasibility study has shown that a bottom up process is not only of large benefit, but also uncovers structural knowledge and client and staff values that underpin any conceptual and practical implementation of a social prescribing service. We see a citizen science approach that is based on co-design and cocreation – meaning the full input of prospective clients, staff and service users- most promising to ensure the creation of a useful social prescribing concept as well as the potential for longer term evaluation of its success. Results are coming from a case study, giving a good insight on the research field, but further research should be done to evaluate the sustainability and effectiveness of such a concept. Future work will also develop a model on integrating citizen science into the service life cycle on how to support such sustainability and impact measurements.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank staff and clients of Access Health and Community involved in this research and for the open discussion and their valuable insights during the co-design workshops. In particular we want to thank Jane Broadhead for her support and guidance throughout the project and Dr Harry Majewski for entrusting us with this innovative and exciting research initiative. Special thanks to the Future Self and Design Living Lab Reference Group for their input on the topic area.

References Alliance for Healthier Communities 2020. Rx: Community Social Prescribing in Ontario. Final Report. March 2020. Borda, A. Gray, K., Downie, L. 2019. Citizen Science Models in Health Research: an Australian Commentary. Online Journal of Public Health Informatics. 11(3):e22, 2019. DOI:10.5210/ojphi.v11i2.10358 Carnes, D., Sohanpal, R., Frostick, C., Hull, S., Mathur, R., Netuveli, G., Tong, J., Hutt, P. and Bertotti, M. (2017). The impact of a social prescribing service on patients in primary care: a mixed methods evaluation. BMC Health Services Research, 17(1). Consumer and Community Health Research. The University of Western Australia. Available at: Dawda P, Knight A. 2017. Experience-based co-design toolkit: a toolkit for Australia Australia: Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Assocation and Consumers Health Forum of Australia. Available from: Den Broeder L 2017. Citizen Science for Health in All Policies. Engaging communities in knowledge development. PhD thesis, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Available at: Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West S, Kyba CCM, Bowser A, Cooper CB, Sforzi A, Metcalfe AN, Harris ES, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling M, DĂśler D, Heigl F, Kiessling T, Davis BY, Jiang Q. 2017. Citizen


science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2(1), 1. Available at: Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S. and Janamian, T., 2016. Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study. The Milbank Quarterly, 94(2), pp.392-429. Haklay M, 2013. Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information – overview and typology of participation. In: Sui, DZ, Elwood, S, and MF Goodchild (eds.). Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge. Berlin: Springer, 105-122. Hicks S, Duran B, Wallerstein N, Avila M, et al. 2012. Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research to Improve Community-Partnered Science and Community Health. Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action. 6(3), 289-299. Husk K, Blockley K, Lovell R, et al. What approaches to social prescribing work, for whom, and in what circumstances? A realist review. Health Soc Care Community. 2020;28(2):309‐ 324. doi:10.1111/hsc.12839 Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine; Olsen LA, Aisner D, McGinnis JM, editors. The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2007. Available from: doi: 10.17226/11903 INVOLVE. UK Department of Health and Social Care. National Institute for Health Research. Available at: Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. 1998. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health. 19, 173–202. Katapally TR 2019.The SMART Framework: Integration of Citizen Science, CommunityBased Participatory Research, and Systems Science for Population Health Science in the Digital Age. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 7(8):e14056. DOI: 10.2196/14056 Keirnan, A., and Pedell S. 2020. Building teams and identifying co-design stakeholders in healthcare projects: A Social Prescription Case Study. In Hirvikoski, Erkkilä, Fred, Helariutta, Kurkela, Pöyry-Lassila, Saastamoinen, Salmi & Äyväri (ed.). Co-creating and Orchestrating Multistakeholder Innovation – Value Co-creation in multistakeholder innovation and business ecosystems. Laurea Publications Kimberlee, R. (2015). What is social prescribing? Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2(1). Kings Fund. 2019. What is social prescribing? Minkler M. 2014. Enhancing data quality, relevance, and use through community-based participatory research. In: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Urban Institute (eds). What Counts: Harnessing Data for America’s Communities. San Francisco & Washington, DC., 244-259. Available at: Moffatt, S., Steer, M., Lawson, S., Penn, L. and O’Brien, N. (2017). Link Worker social prescribing to improve health and well-being for people with long-term conditions: qualitative study of service user perceptions. BMJ Open, 7(7), p.e015203.


Osborne, S, Radnor Z, Strokosch, K. (2016) Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review 18:5, 639-653, DOI:10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927 Pecl, G, Gillies, C, Sbrocchi, C, and Roetman, P. 2015. Building Australia Through Citizen Science. Available at: Accessed 31 March 2019. Pedell, S., Murphy, A., Keirnan, A., Marcello, F. (2018). Co-designing the waiting room of the future: considering a combination of the spatial, service, and technology layer through the lens of patients’ emotions. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Design4Health, Sheffield 4th to 6th September 2018. Petersen, C. et al. 2020. Citizen science to further precision medicine: from vision to implementation. JAMIA Open, 3(1), 2020, 2–8. doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz060 Platt JE, Raj M, Wienroth M. 2020. An Analysis of the Learning Health System in Its First Decade in Practice: Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res 22(3):e17026. DOI: 10.2196/17026 Polley MJ, Fleming J, Anfilogoff T, Carpenter A. (2017) Making sense of social prescribing (University of Westminster, London). Available at: Reeves, N, Tinati, R, Zerr, S, Van Kleek, M G, and Simperl,E. 2017. From crowd to community: A survey of online community features in citizen science projects. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, 2137–2152. Rowbotham, S, McKinnon, M, Leach, J, Lamberts, R, and Hawe, P. 2019. Does citizen science have the capacity to transform population health science? Critical Public Health, 29 1):118-128. DOI: 10.1080/09581596.2017.1395393 Sauermann, Henry and Vohland, Katrin and Antoniou, Vyron and Balazs, Balint and Göbel, Claudia and Karatzas, Kostas and Mooney, Peter and Perelló, Josep and Ponti, Marisa and Samson, Roeland and Winter, Silvia, Citizen Science and Sustainability Transitions (March 21, 2020). Available at SSRN: or The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and Consumers Health Forum of Australia 2020. Social Prescribing Roundtable, November 2019: Report. Available at: Thomson, L.J., Camic, P.M. & Chatterjee, H.J. (2015). Social Prescribing: A review of community referral schemes. London: University College London. Van Brussel, S. and Huyse, H. 2019. Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 62 (3): 534-551. DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2018.1428183 Ward, M. E., De Brun, A., Beirne, D., Conway, C., Cunningham, U.,English, A.,., & McAuliffe, E. (2018). Using co-design to develop a collective leadership intervention for healthcare teams to improve safety culture. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15:1182. Wells, L. (2020). ‘Iso’ – a spur to think about social prescribing. Croakey 13 May 2020.


Wiggins A, Wilbanks J. 2019. The rise of citizen science in health and biomedical research, The American Journal of Bioethics. 19 (8), 3-14. Woodall, J., Trigwell, J., Bunyan, A., Raine, G., Eaton, V., Davis, J., Hancock, L., Cunningham, M. and Wilkinson, S. (2018). Understanding the effectiveness and mechanisms of a social prescribing service: a mixed method analysis. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1).


Rainfall and Flood Monitoring through Citizen Science in Urban Living Labs Authors Carina Veeckman (corresponding author) IMEC-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Laura Temmerman IMEC-SMIT, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Abstract The participation of the general public in flood risk management is a recent phenomenon. Cities are exploring different participatory mechanisms to reinforce the rights of the public to access information about flood risks and to have a say in the planning processes. Through developments in sensing technology, data processing and visualizations, citizen science is emerging as a promising field for the general public to participate in scientific research that informs policy making. This paper reviews the emergence of citizen participation in rainfall and flood monitoring initiatives and explores the role of Urban Living Labs to complement the development and knowledge generation of flood services. Data were collected through a comparative case study of diverse citizen participation projects for monitoring floods in and beyond Europe. The projects are compared on the level of typology and actor network. Further, lessons learned are drawn from the FloodCitiSense project that involved three Urban Living Labs in Rotterdam, Birmingham and Brussels. The FloodCitiSense project engages citizens in the flood precaution phase through the analysis of crowdsourced information and invests in awareness building around pluvial floods through a mobile and web-based application. Through a facilitated cocreation approach the particular role of citizens in flood risk management in the three cities was validated and put into practice. The discussion reflects about the delineation and interplay of citizen science in Urban Living Labs, through the experienced advantages and challenges in FloodCitiSense.

Key words: Citizen Science, Urban Living Labs, Flood Risk Management, Environmental Monitoring


1. Introduction Floods are identified as the most common type of disaster (European Environment Agency, 2010; World Economic Forum, 2016). A flood occurs when water temporarily covers land where it normally does not. Depending on the combination of hydrological and topographical factors, floods can be grouped into different categories, such as river floods, flash floods, coastal floods, etc. (European Environment Agency, 2012). This paper focusses on urban drainage floods, which are characterized by insufficient drainage capacity of the local systems in response to intense rainfall in urban areas (ibid.). Urban drainage flooding is an emergent urban hazard primarily caused by prolonged or intense precipitation events, which is amplified by several factors: (i) an ageing drainage infrastructure, (ii) less green infrastructure in cities, and (iii) climate change with an increased likelihood of extreme weather events, such as wetter winters and heavier summer showers (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 2007). Urban drainage floods stem from both natural and man-made processes, as such they are hard to predict across temporal and spatial contexts. Due to their rapid onset and highly localized nature, urban drainage floods are known to cause significant damage to the urban environment. To cope with floods, most European countries apply integrated flood risk management (Cassel & Hinsberger, 2017) under guidance of the European Flood Directive 2007/60/EC which requires public participation mechanisms to ensure citizens’ involvement in decision-making processes around flood risk management. Local authorities are currently experimenting with participatory approaches, such as citizen science (CS), to provide new ways of participation. CS is defined as scientific work undertaken wholly or partially by members of the public, often in collaboration with or under the direction of professional scientists (Cambrdige University Press, n.d.). Through CS, citizens can contribute to map and assess flood hazards at various temporal and spatial scales, which in turn can help to improve prediction models (Sy et al., 2019). Further, flood risk management can be approached through regional innovation networks. Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are a way to manage such innovation processes. Through ULLs, CS is often used for environmental monitoring of particular issues, raising awareness and informing policy making (cfr. CortÊs & Hassan, 2019). However, the implementation of a CS approach in ULLs is relatively new, and often results in little synergy due to a lack of interoperability and reusability of data and services developed in each project ( Lewis, 2017).


In this article, a comparative case study analysis is presented of various projects involving citizens in the monitoring of rainfall and floods, with the aim to shed light on the delineation of CS and ULLs. The projects are compared on the level of typology and actor network. Further, the specific case of the FloodCitiSense project is discussed. This project aims to develop an early warning tool for urban drainage flooding for and by citizens. The tool is tested in three ULLs: Brussels, Rotterdam and Birmingham, whereby a CS approach is set up for the collection of rainfall data and occurrence of flood events. In the conclusion part, a reflection is provided about the delineation and interplay of CS in ULLs in the FloodCitiSense project, together with its advantages and challenges.

2. Literature review 2.1.

Urban Living Labs

The concept of “Living Labs” appears as a buzzword for a multitude of activities in the innovation domain. Its roots can be traced back across various user-innovation paradigms, ranging from prototyping and testing of new innovations in laboratory settings to experimental testbeds, and more recently, to situated real-life environments. Living Labs (LLs) are commonly defined as a “user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-world contexts” (Eriksson et al., 2005). Alongside prospective user groups, the innovation ecosystem is formed by partnerships which may include companies, research institutions and universities, local authorities, etc. (Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). The formation of these public-private-people partnerships (PPPP), also known as Quadruple Helix formations, can yield potential advantages, such as greater public involvement, transdisciplinary research, creativity and knowledge exchange (Yun & Liu, 2019). Although co-creation is facilitated among these different stakeholders, managing a multi-actor collaboration in LL settings is a challenging endeavour. In this regard, van Geenhuizen (2018) designed an evaluation framework describing key performance factors of LLs, clustered in four themes: (i) evolving learning processes related to co-creation, such as the sufficient motivation of actors to participate, the adequate skills and capabilities of actors to interact, (ii) evolving learning processes with respect of social values, such as privacy and identity, transparency in decisionmaking, sustainability, etc., (iii) broader networking with a sense of openness and a balanced set of actors, and finally (iv) an inviting real-life environment for experimentation. From this evaluation framework, a link can be made with previous work on main ‘building blocks’ of LL environments (Veeckman et al., 2013) where main characteristics of LLs, such as the innovation ecosystem and the level of openness, have an impact on the daily operations and outcomes of LL projects.


Further, LLs are helpful for solving wicked urban issues, like flooding (Juujärvi & Pesso, 2013). ‘Wicked problems’ are problems difficult or impossible to solve because of their incomplete, contradictory and changing requirements (Rittel & Webber, 1973). A number of approaches have been identified in literature for solving these wicked problems, such as taking a place-based approach, enabling coherent action by diverse actors, involving users as co-creators, supporting a networked governance approach and recognizing the government as an enabler of change. Not surprisingly, a number of these approaches are key characteristics of particular types of LLs (Zivkovic, 2018): the Urban Living Labs (ULLs). ULLs have a particular focus on the generation of public value with a place-based focus, often a specific urban site or city, and aim to deliver innovative and transformative improvements across the urban milieu (Bulkeley et al., 2016). In this regard, ULLs are showing particular promise in urban environments for tackling sustainability challenges, such as energy efficiency, food poverty, waste management, etc. (McCormick & Kiss, 2015). Although ULLs have the basic principles of co-creation of innovations in common with traditional LLs, Chronéer et al. (2019) found that ULLs tend to have a greater emphasis on the governance model, including politics. The carried-out activities by the initiatives must be supported by policy makers in order to be sustainable - both on the managerial and financial level. Another distinguishing characteristic is that city representatives are often the enabler of the initiative, creating a vision and providing strategic leadership whereas in traditional LLs this role is often filled in by research institutes or organizations (Juujärvi & Pesso, 2013). Therefore, the presence of PPPPs are more prevailing than in traditional LLs, leading to closer collaborations between public administrations and universities (cfr. Veeckman & van der Graaf, 2015). Finally, another distinguishing characteristic is the utilization of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for both technical testing and collection of data. In this manner, the usage of technologies is inherently part of the methodology, such as the collection of data through sensors or the development of apps (Nesti, 2018).



Participation of Citizens in Flood Risk Management

To cope with floods, most European countries apply integrated flood risk management (Cassel & Hinsberger, 2017). This approach considers the full disaster cycle in the management and prevention of flood disasters, and not only the mitigation of the direct consequences of a hazard.

Figure 1 : Flood risk management cycle (Cassel & Hinsberger, 2017). Through integrated flood risk management, multiple stages of the disaster cycle are targeted. During the prevention stage, damage is prevented by avoiding the construction of buildings in present or future flood-prone areas through adequate land use planning. In the protection phase, specific (non-)structural measures are taken to reduce the likelihood of floods. The preparedness phase informs the population about flood risks, and what to do in the event of a flood – flood risk maps and flood forecasting can be part of the communication strategy. The response phase develops emergency response plans in case of a flood. Finally, the recovery phase tries to mitigate the social and economic impacts of the affected population. Since Member States in the European Union are dealing with specific types of floods and the degree of flood risks in varying ways, activities related to flood protection are various. For instance, the United Kingdom provides a holistic approach through flood risk maps1, emergency plans, a flood forecasting system2, etc.

1 2


Under guidance of the European Flood Directive 2007/60/EC (Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (Text with EEA Relevance), 2007) public participation mechanisms are required to ensure citizens’ involvement in decision-making processes. The Directive reinforces the rights of the public to access information about flood-prone areas, and to have a say in the planning process. As a result, the involvement of a broader range of stakeholders in flood risk management is seen as necessary to effectively reduce flood-related damage, in which citizens are expected to take active responsibility rather than passively receiving a service (Wehn et al., 2015). In the study of Mees et al. (2016), citizen involvement is conceptualized in flood risk management into the following dimensions (i) co-planning: participation of citizens in the decision-making process or in the agenda setting, (ii) co-delivery: participation of citizens in the implementation of flood risk management measures, such as flood protection measures at household level, and (iii) comprehensive co-production: participation of citizens in both the decision-making, agenda setting, implementation and evaluation of the measures. However, empirical findings have also shown that despite the great emphasis on local stakeholder participation, the actual involvement and influence on decision-making processes is limited. This is mostly due to the interplay of economic efficiency (Begg et al., 2017). Unbalanced participation could lead to frustration, conflict and increased inequality. Therefore, it is advised that from the beginning, the terms of participation are clearly outset to deal with expectations and opportunities. Participatory science approaches, such as citizen science, enabled by ICTs and sensor technology might have to potential to provide new ways of participation and is further on explored in this paper.


Citizen science for Environmental Monitoring

CS refers to the involvement of citizens in science, to varying degrees and in various phases of the scientific research process. CS projects are generally divided into three categories: (i) contributory, whereby citizens collect data; (ii) collaborative, whereby citizens collect, analyse and help disseminating the results to some extent; (iii) cocreated, whereby citizens design the project together with scientists and are involved in all steps of the research process (Bonney et al., 2009). With the pressing environmental challenges societies are now facing, projects in the environmental spheres are more and more prevalent (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). Initiatives focusing on environmental monitoring have emerged, harnessing the power of Community Based Monitoring (CBM) to better understand phenomenons such as soil quality (KovĂĄcs et al., 2019), urban air pollution (McCrory et al., 2017) and urban flooding (Verbeiren et al., 2018).


These projects are also labelled as “Citizen Observatories” and are defined as “the citizens’ own observations and understanding of environmentally-related problems, and in particularly as reporting and commenting on them” (Liu et al., 2014, p. 4). The particular benefit of CS and Citizen Observatories for environmental monitoring is that such projects allow for large-scale collection of data, offering both high frequency and high geographical coverage (Hecker et al., 2018). The engagement of citizens in science is seen as an effective way to link citizens with experts and policy makers (Figueiredo Nascimento et al., 2016; Hecker et al., 2018). Benefits from this linkage include: democratic legitimacy, accountability and transparent governance; trust building amongst citizens and institutions; understanding of societal concerns; creation of innovative strategies; generation and evaluation of new policies; community empowerment and awareness raising (ibid.). An important aspect of CS is its potential influence on policy. Actors from policy spheres are starting to recognize the advantages of CS as a timely and cost-effective source of knowledge that can support policy implementation and complement official reporting (Hecker et al., 2018). More specifically, Göbel et al. (2019) described CS as feeding into, being affected by, forming part of, and exercising four type of governance: (i) source of information for policy-making – refers to the fact that CS’s outputs are being used to formulate policies, (ii) object of research policy – here CS is being regulated through policies to advance research, technology and innovation, (iii) policy instrument – CS is seen as a disruptive innovation, instrumentalized by policies to reach their goal, and (iv) socio-technical governance – CS is seen as a direct type of governance via non-policy actors, answering societal problems through prototypes developed by citizens. However, policy-making is still currently based on experts’ inputs with little room for lay-knowledge coming from citizens (Figueiredo Nascimento et al., 2016). As a result, the actual impacts of CS on policy-making are still difficult to demonstrate (Hecker et al., 2018). Since citizen engagement is not worthwhile if their contribution is not integrated in the stages of policy making (Figueiredo Nascimento et al., 2016), several challenges must be confronted. First, institutional and organizational culture must shift to fight resistance in acknowledging the value of CS (Figueiredo Nascimento et al., 2016): mechanisms enabling citizens to impact evidence-based processes for policy making have to be put in place (Hecker et al., 2018). Further, public institutions have to carefully consider the resources and manage expectations, without turning CS into a top-down governance tool (Hecker et al., 2018). Second, there is an issue of representativeness within CS: although CS aims to democratize science for all, projects are more likely to attract citizens that already have these resources (Hecker et al., 2018). Ganzevoort et al. (2017) expose that the average citizen scientist is white, male, middle-aged, middle-class, well-educated, and has a pre-existing interest in science.


This lack of involvement from minority groups poses a fundamental threat to social justice (Hecker et al., 2018). Third, technical and legal questions regarding the use of citizen generated data arise: from intellectual property and ownership to data quality and management, CS initiatives are faced with obstacles in the use and valorisation of their results (Figueiredo Nascimento et al., 2016). However, more and more studies are focusing on these problematics and attest of the reliability of citizens produced data (e.g. Albus et al., 2020; Fink et al., 2020; Xaver et al., 2020).

3. Research Design In order to shed light on the emergence of citizen participation in urban rainfall and flood monitoring, a comparative case study analysis (Dooley, 2002) of main past and current projects monitoring rainfall and urban flood through CS was performed in Europe and the United Status. Since CS and ULL practices are rather new, especially in a combined setting, and that definitions are often used for a variety of activities, the case study analysis compares practical examples and studies similarities and differences in practice. A sample of relevant projects was selected and analysed through online document analysis, including project websites, platforms for citizen science and academic papers. The search was performed through the CORDIS platform of the European Commission and various CS platforms (e.g. SciStarter). The following key terms were used during the search: ‘citizen science’, ‘(urban) living lab’, ‘urban flood(ing)’, ‘ (urban) rainfall (monitoring)’, ‘sensors’, ‘citizen volunteers’ and ‘citizen observatories’. A hard prerequisite for the selection of cases was the involvement of citizens in the collection of data about rainfall and/or flood monitoring through a true CS approach. Participants need to be actively involved in the scientific endeavours with a meaningful role in the project, and not solely as mere data collectors (cfr. Ten Principles of Citizen Science of Robinson et al., 2018). If this criterion was not met, then the project was disregarded from the analysis. After the selective search and appraising the documents, the projects were compared on two main variables: typology (how is the project positioning itself: as a CS and/or ULL project), and the actor network (which organisations are part of the project). Next, the FloodCitiSense project is discussed in more detail. This project was selected for further investigation as a CS approach was applied in three ULLs for the collection of data for an early warning tool. FloodCitiSense can be situated in the precaution phase of integrated flood risk management, as it invests in awareness building around urban flooding through a mobile and web-based application. Both systems display official and citizen generated data about rainfall and occurrence of flood events. The results of a facilitated co-creation approach are presented, including its challenges and opportunities.


4. Results 4.1.

Citizen Participation in Rainfall and Flood Monitoring

In total, 15 projects were selected, all involving citizens in rainfall and/or urban flood monitoring. Four out of 15 projects, being (°1998), (°2005), Crowdhydrology (°2010) and FLOCAST (°2013) are located in the United States (US). The two former projects are still ongoing. These longstanding projects position themselves as a community or cooperative network of volunteers for monitoring rainfall, whereas the latter ones position themselves as citizen science projects for flood observations and general hydrological data. All these projects rather use(d) simple low-cost measurement tools, such as rain gauges or crowdsourced flood reports. Looking at the other thirteen projects in Europe, most of them are situated in NorthWestern Europe (The Netherlands, The United Kingdom, Belgium and Scotland). Thanks to innovation programmes of the European Union a new wave of projects, labelled as ‘citizen observatories’ arose in Europe starting from 2012 onwards. Amongst them are Groundtruth 2.0, Scent and WeSenseIt. The pilot case in The Netherlands of Groundtruth 2.0 is still active today and continued after the project funding thanks to a non-governmental organisation. The other projects are not operable anymore. These projects were defined by community-based environmental monitoring through novel earth observation systems. They aimed to raise citizens’ awareness and to stimulate dialogue between citizens, scientists and policy makers. The role that citizen scientists can/could play goes beyond the mere data collection than in the former mentioned initiatives in the US. Later on, several CS projects pop up with more advanced measurement tools: the UCRain pilot study by the University of Birmingham, Rainfall observers by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Crowdwater by the University of Zurich and cityhYd by a start-up in Italy. In the same period, the first projects combining the notions of CS and ULLs pop up. Rain Sense in 2014 is a LL project of AMS Institute, and part of their broader platform ‘’, that launches a smartphone app to map flooding and measure rainfall through measurement stations and mobile rain meters. In 2017, BrussEAU starts as a LL for co-creation, which is organised by the Etats Généraux de l'Eau à Bruxelles – a citizen initiative that wants to better connect with the local city authorities on water issues after a heavy experienced flooding. In this same year, the FloodCitiSense project starts three ULLs with a CS approach: in Brussels coordinated by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), in Rotterdam by TU Delft and in Birmingham by the Local Government Information Unit (LGIU). Last, in 2018, WaterLab starts in The Netherlands as a LL platform for CS projects to facilitate research and innovation.


When comparing the actor network, it is found that seven out of fifteen projects were solely initiated by a research institute or university. Four projects were initiated or taken over by citizen communities - BrussEAU, ‘Grip op water’ (Groundtruth 2.0) and the ULL in Birmingham and Brussels of FloodCitiSense. These initiatives represent the concerns of citizens to local authorities and are also often in first communication line with the city council for precautionary or mitigation measures in case a flooding. Three other projects had/have a combined partnership between a university or citizen association and a local authority. Interestingly, only two projects are initiated by public authorities, being FLOCAST and Rainfall Observers. This is an interesting finding as CS data is often been regarded as unreliable or of poor quality for public services. Only one project was initiated by a commercial stakeholder, being cityhYd. Table 1: Actor network and typology of the investigated case studies. Projects (US - °1998)

Actor Network Research institute (US - °2005)

PPP partnership

Crowdhydrology (US – °2010)

Research institute

FLOCAST (US - °2013)

Public stakeholder

UCRain (UK - °2013)

Research institute

Rainfall observers (Scotland - °2016)

Public stakeholder

Crowdwater (globally active - °2016)

Research institute

cityhYd (Italy - °2016)

Private stakeholder

WeSenseIt (Italy, UK and The Netherlands - °2012)

Public-private partnership

Groundtruth 2.0 (Pilot case in The Netherlands - °2016)


Scent (Pilot case in Greece - °2016)

PPP partnership

Rain Sense (The Netherlands - °2014)

Research institute

BrussEAU (Belgium - °2017)


FloodCitiSense (Belgium, The Netherlands and the UK - °2017)

Research institute (The Netherlands) & Combined partnership: research and citizens (Belgium, UK)

WaterLab (The Netherlands - °2018)

Research institute

Typology Volunteer community network Citizen science project

Citizen observatory

Living Lab project


4.2. FloodCitiSense: An Early Warning Tool for and by Citizens In the FloodCitiSense project, three ULLs were constituted to co-create an early warning tool for and by citizens. The early warning tool consists of a mobile and webbased application that allows data collection by citizens scientists with the help of lowcost sensors and the submission of static reports about flood events. The tools also test out a risk communication approach for signalling probability of flood events in the city. In all ULLs, PPPPs were present (See Annex I). During the project lifetime, a LL approach was set up to design and test the early warning tool. Co-creation workshops were organised to collect user wants and needs in the first year of the project, and which were then translated into a concept and first prototype. In the second and third year of the project, the LL approach continued through iterative testing of the tools, whereby user experience and performance scores were gathered. Further, technical testing occurred of the low-cost rainfall sensors. Citizens in the three cities were engaged through a citizen science approach for data collection with a respective communication and engagement strategy. They were asked to install the sensor at home and to submit flood reports during heavy rainfalls. One of the advantages of combining CS in ULL contexts is that a lot of communication and bilateral discussion could happen with local citizens. The organised educational workshops (more than 12 in total) helped to educate citizens on flood (forecasting) and senor technology. Further, the stakeholders in the ecosystem testified about increased insights and willingness to apply an active role for citizens in flood management. However, some challenges were also experienced related to the sustainability plans of the early warning tools. For Birmingham, the low perceived quality of the citizen generated data and the high perceived efforts to host and maintain the application caused that upon today discussions are still ongoing about the integration of FloodCitiSense into their service portfolio. They questioned the efforts related to the validation of the individual static reports, vis-Ă -vis current reporting and alert systems. In Rotterdam, the decision was made that FloodCitiSense would be partly integrated in an already existing system, called ‘Buitenbeter’. This application already has a large user base and allows citizens to report any incident in the city and is well connected with current databases of the local authority. Further, a low frequency of floods and a rather small user base caused that other weather services were explored for integration. For Brussels, stakeholders are still exploring an integration with the existing FLOWBRU application and with the national weather forecasting system.


5. Conclusion The objective of this paper is to shed light on the emergence of citizen participation in rainfall and flood monitoring through the delineation of CS and ULLs, and to reflect about challenges and opportunities that can arise when a synergy is formed between the two concepts. Therefore, a comparative case study analysis was presented of main past and current projects monitoring rainfall and urban floods, completed with a detailed experience of the FloodCitiSense project. From the comparative analysis, it can be concluded that the positioning of citizen participation in rainfall and flood monitoring arose along a continuum from ‘volunteer community networks’ to ‘citizen observatories’, towards solely ‘citizen science’ projects and then in combined settings as ‘living labs. According to the chosen typology of the project, the role of citizens evolves from volunteers in scientific endeavours working with professional scientists with a focus on data collection (e.g. CoCoRaHS) towards co-creators of the water management processes in the city (e.g. BrussEAU). Most of the projects were initiated by a research institute, which is traditional from the standpoint of CS projects, however, in ULL settings it is more common to have a city representative as enabler. From the selected cases, only two projects were initiated by a public stakeholder and two others had a combined PPP-partnership. This poses a threat that once the project funding has stopped, the data and citizen science tools will remain left unused or disintegrated from public services. Further, there should be sufficient motivation of actors to participate and objectives should be aligned. Research institutes traditionally focus on scientific valorisation and data collection in CS projects, while city stakeholders will strive for service and innovation design as a primary target goal in ULL projects. Several opportunities and challenges were identified about the synergy between CS and ULL in FloodCitiSense. OPPORTUNITIES • Awareness raising & education: Citizen science can help in gaining public support for (new) policies, in creating trust in science or in general understanding about the topic. It is recommended to invest in a number of educational outputs that brings mutual understanding of science and society, such as the educational workshops in FloodCitiSense. • Interactivity & discussion: Citizen science can help in co-creating services and policies, and improving the interactivity with local stakeholders. Therefore, we plea for increasing the awareness of public and private stakeholders about the advantages of CS, and for experimenting with more democratic approaches for flood management. At the moment, not many projects are initiated by these types of stakeholders around rainfall and flood monitoring. A more democratic approach seems beneficial, as demonstrated by FloodCitiSense.


CHALLENGES: • A true CS approach: Some projects were disregarded from the analysis since they did meet with the main principles of CS research. Therefore, we plea for a correct implementation of the Ten Principles of Citizen Science ((Robinson et al., 2018) in ULL settings. The scientific and innovation objectives should be well aligned, with a solid research question in the working plan of the project. • Data quality: The ULL in Birmingham seemed to struggle with the issues of data quality, since the application was only used by a low number of users of the local Flood Action Group. The main challenge in this example is that the development of a new system in combination with the collection of data through CS is very hard to realise. Therefore, we recommend that the objective of a project should be to strive for large-scale citizen science for policy making, or to focus on new innovative solutions with a lower degree of involvement of citizens (e.g. by rather using traditional participatory action research instead of cocreation). Combining the two objectives seems only realisable when validated, robust and easy-to-use CS tools are used. If not, then the changes for success might decrease to inform policy making. • Engagement through technology: The engagement of citizen scientists through technology presents another challenge. Two projects, CoCoRaHS and, are the longest existing projects monitoring rainfall. These projects are very easy to engage with as they demand little skills and efforts to participate. When projects demand a higher involvement of an organisation in the training and valorisation of the data quality, it appears that projects either stop or that certain datasets are being left unused because of the cost efficiency that drops – which is for instance the case for the static reports of the FloodCitiSense project. Here, we recommend that project initiators try to identify policy needs in the early stage of a project and share best practices to achieve data reliability which also align with the research objectives of the partners.


Acknowledgment The work was carried out under the framework of the FloodCitiSense project (GA 693443) supported through the "ERA-NET Cofound Smart Urban Futures" (ENSUF) programme and funded through the European Union’s "Urban Europe" Joint Programming Initiative until July 2020.


Annex I

Figure 2 : Birmingham Urban Living Lab – actor network.

Figure 3 : Brussels Urban Living Lab – actor network.

Figure 4 : Rotterdam Urban Living Lab – actor network.


References Albus, K. H., Thompson, R., Mitchell, F., Kennedy, J., & Ponette-González, A. G. (2020). Accuracy of long-term volunteer water monitoring data: A multiscale analysis from a statewide citizen science program. PloS One, 15(1), e0227540. Begg, C., Callsen, I., Kuhlicke, C., & Kelman, I. (2017). The role of local stakeholder participation in flood defence decisions in the United Kingdom and Germany. Journal of Flood Risk Management. Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential









Report. Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., Marvin, S., McCormick, K., van Steenbergen, F., & Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2016). Urban living labs: Governing








Sustainability, 22, 13–17. Cambrdige University Press. (n.d.). CITIZEN SCIENCE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary.





from Cassel, M. a., & Hinsberger, M. (2017). Flood partnerships: A participatory approach to develop and implement the Flood Risk Management Plans. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10(2), 164–172. Chronéer, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Habibipour, A. (2019). Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(3), 50–62. Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1), 273–291. Cortés, C. M., & Hassan, C. (2019). The Living Lab Guidebook for Cities fighting against Air Pollution. iSCAPE project. Dooley, L. M. (2002). Case Study Research and Theory Building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 335–354.


Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P., & Kulkki, S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation-a European approach. Lulea: Center for Distance-Spanning Technology. Lulea University of Technology Sweden: Lulea. Online under: Http://Www. Cdt. Ltu. Se/Main. Php/SOA_LivingLabs. Pdf. European Environment Agency. (2010). Mapping the impacts of natural hazards and technological accidents in Europe [Publication]. European Environment Agency. European Environment Agency (Ed.). (2012). Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe. Challenges and opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies. European Environment Agency. Figueiredo Nascimento, S., Cuccillato, E., Schade, S., & Pereira, A. G. (2016). Citizen engagement in science and policy-making. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fink, D., Auer, T., Johnston, A., Ruiz‐Gutierrez, V., Hochachka, W. M., & Kelling, S. (2020). Modeling avian full annual cycle distribution and population trends with citizen science data. Ecological Applications, 30(3), e02056. Ganzevoort, W., van den Born, R. J. G., Halffman, W., & Turnhout, S. (2017). Sharing biodiversity data: Citizen scientists’ concerns and motivations. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26(12), 2821–2837. Göbel, C., Nold, C., Berditchevskaia, A., & Haklay, M. (2019). How Does Citizen Science “Do” Governance? Reflections from the DITOs Project. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1), Article 1. Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., & Vogel, J. (2018). Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy. UCL Press. Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Actor Roles in an Urban Living Lab: What Can We Learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Technology Innovation Management Review, November 2013: Living Labs, 22–27. Kovács, K. Z., Hemment, D., Woods, M., Velden, N. K. van der, Xaver, A., Esen, R. H. G., Burton, V. J., Garrett, N. L., Zappa, L., Long, D., Dobos, E., & Skalsky, R. (2019). Citizen observatory based soil moisture monitoring – The GROW example. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin, 68(2), 119–139. Lewis, T. (2017). Living Labs: An Intersection of Scientific Innovation | Wilson Center.


Liu, H.-Y., Kobernus, M., Broday, D., & Bartonova, A. (2014). A conceptual approach to a citizens’ observatory – supporting community-based environmental governance. Environmental Health, 13(1), 107. McCormick, K., & Kiss, B. (2015). Learning through renovations for urban sustainability: The case of the Malmö Innovation Platform. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 16, 44–50. McCrory, G., Veeckman, C., & Claeys, L. (2017). Citizen science is in the air–Engagement mechanisms from technology-mediated citizen science projects addressing air pollution. International Conference on Internet Science, 28–38. Mees, H., Crabbé, A., Alexander, M., Kaufmann, M., Bruzzone, S., Lévy, L., & Lewandowski, J. (2016). Coproducing flood risk management through citizen involvement: Insights from cross-country comparison in Europe. Ecology and Society, 21(3). Nesti, G. (2018). Co-production for innovation: The urban living lab experience. Policy and Society, 37(3), 310–325. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (Text with EEA relevance), 32007L0060, CONSIL, EP, OJ L 288 (2007). Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2007). Urban flooding. Postnote. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. Robinson, L. D., Cawthray, J. D., West, S. E., Bonn, A., & Ansine, J. (2018). Ten principles of citizen science. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Citizen Science—Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy (pp. 27–40). UCL Press. Sy, B., Frischknecht, C., Dao, H., Consuegra, D., & Giuliani, G. (2019). Flood hazard assessment and the role of citizen science. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 12(S2), e12519. van Geenhuizen, M. (2018). A framework for the evaluation of living labs as boundary spanners in innovation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(7), 1280– 1298.


Veeckman, C., & van der Graaf, S. (2015). The City as Living Laboratory: Empowering Citizens with the Citadel Toolkit. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(3), 6–17. Verbeiren, B., Seyoum, S. D., Lubbad, I., Xin, T., ten Veldhuis, M.-C., Onof, C., Wang, L.-P., Ochoa-Rodriguez, S., Veeckman, C., & Boonen, M. (2018). FloodCitiSense: Early warning service for urban pluvial floods for and by citizens and city authorities. International Conference on Urban Drainage Modelling, 660–664. Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 225–236. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1). World Economic Forum. (2016). Which natural disasters hit most frequently? World Economic Forum.

frequently/ Xaver, A., Zappa, L., Rab, G., Pfeil, I., Vreugdenhil, M., Hemment, D., & Dorigo, W. (2020). Evaluating the suitability of the consumer low-cost Parrot Flower Power soil moisture sensor for scientific environmental applications. Geosci. Instrum. Methods Data Syst. In Review. Yun, J. J., & Liu, Z. (2019). Micro- and Macro-Dynamics of Open Innovation with a QuadrupleHelix Model. Sustainability, 11(12), 3301. Zivkovic, S. (2018). Systemic innovation labs: A lab for wicked problems. Social Enterprise Journal, 14(3), 348–366.


Research in Progress paper

Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Behavior Change in Renewable Energy Communities Authors Olivia De Ruyck, imec-mict-UGent, Department of Communication Sciences, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Peter Conradie, imec-mict-UGent, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design Ghent University, Kortrijk, Belgium Lieven De Marez, imec-mict-UGent, Department of Communication Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium Jelle Saldien, imec-mict-UGent, Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design Ghent University, Kortrijk, Belgium

Abstract Energy Communities, where energy can be produced, stored locally and shared with others, are crucial to meet challenging climate objectives. However, currently residents of shared energy projects receive no feedback about the real-time consumption in the building and they cannot adjust their behaviour according to the needs of the community. In this research in progress we describe the "Mona Prisa", an interactive prototype for feedback in Energy Communities. The prototype is located at the entrance of a building and displays energy, water and heat flows. After the design phase (based on the results from 51 interviews), this research in progress wants to evaluate the prototype, search for optimal interfaces and define design guidelines for interfaces in Energy Communities.

Key words: Energy consumption feedback, prototype, energy community, feedback, information, interface, behaviour change


Research in Progress paper

European Green Deal: the Living Lab for Codeveloping Digital Energy Solutions Working paper from the first co-design workshop Authors Mastelic, Joelle, Francesco Cimmino, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland, Sierre, Switzerland. Tarantola Stefano, Contini Stefania, Ferretti Federico, Joint Research Center, Ispra, Italy.

Abstract In the context of the European Green Deal, engagement of all stakeholders seems key to succeeding in the energy transition. The Living Lab has been identified as one of the potential tools to support engagement as well as empowerment of the key stakeholders. Within the Living Lab, emerging technologies and user-codesigned solutions are tested in a real-life context, producing evidence of their societal impact and thus helping the development of smart-city policies at larger scale, in line with the Living Lab mission. The Living Lab Integrative Process has been tested on a smart campus dedicated to digitisation of energy. A milestone of the project was a co-design workshop held in January 2020. This paper describes the outcomes of this event and seeks feedback from the readers on possible ways forward.

Keywords Green Deal, Living Lab, Digital Energy, EU policy, Smart Campus


Background The European Commission announced in December 2019 the introduction of a plan supporting the decarbonisation of energy called The Green Deal. This plan provides for investments in various fields, in particular in the building sector, which consumes 40% of Europe's energy and is highly carbonated (EC, 2013). The plan includes the renovation old buildings and also the reduction of energy consumption of more modern buildings (energy efficiency). One of the challenges of this reduction in consumption is the mobilisation of all stakeholders in the process, and in particular the users of the buildings in complex sociotechnical systems (Geels, 2004). A PhD thesis of the co-author has shown that Living Labs can help, especially in the codesign of energy efficiency plans with stakeholders through a public, private, people partnership as described in the quadruple helix model. In this article, we describe an experimentation of the co-design of an action plan, based on the Living Lab Integrative Process (Figure 1). It is a work in progress because the results of the experimentation are not yet known. The authors request constructive feedback from the Living Labs’ community.

Method: Case study applying the Living Lab Integrative Process In order to test the Living Lab method in real life environment, the Living Lab Integrative Process was applied in a smart campus dedicated to energy and mobility. Figure: the Living Lab integrative process

This article focuses on phase 3 of the Living Lab Integrative Process: Codesign the Plan shown in Figure 1. A codesign workshop has been held in January 2020. The methodology adopted for the workshop is inspired by Community Based Social Marketing (Mc Kenzie-Mohr, 2000), in which open discussion and confrontation of


ideas on barriers and drivers are encouraged as a mean to ultimately agree on a common vision of the challenge and build trust among the actors (Dupont et al, 2019). The codesign workshop aimed at: • engaging the main stakeholders, and setting a common vision and objectives for the implementation of the Living Lab’s pilot projects; • empowering the participants, in fostering a “practice what we preach” approach; • understanding the different individual perspectives, needs and barriers to enable the co-design of solutions closer to these needs, and to enable their better uptake. The co-design workshop focused on three key social practices which emerged from a previous workshop (1) Smart charging systems for electric mobility, (2) Energy efficiency and savings, (3) Open data and visualisation. The workshop was organised in three sessions. • In session I, the audience was provided with clear information on the context, on current activities and main objectives of the Living Lab project, along with data, facts and figures related to the present situation of the site’s infrastructure and future development plans. • In session II, participants were asked to work in groups on specific pilot use cases, to identify drivers to the development and acceptance of the use cases’ solutions, as well as barriers that may preclude their uptake. • In session III, participants worked in groups on the same use cases. The session was divided into two types of activities: (1) Co-design a solution and its features, (2) Evaluate the proposed solution and modify it, using a model based on seven questions, i.e. the “seven step-stones to innovation”, originally developed by Human Centricity at EPFL, Switzerland.

Results of the Workshop For the scope of this paper, we focus on one of the three cases: Smart energy monitoring system. The site has a system for monitoring both energy consumption and renewable energy production. Workshop participants were encouraged to discuss: the monitoring and evaluation of energy consumption in offices and common areas (both indoors and outdoors); future charging points for electric vehicles; and new installations for renewable energy production. The objective was not only to propose solutions for providing energy monitoring and reporting at site level, but also to maximise energy savings, while maintaining comfort, and increasing energy efficiency. The main barriers and drivers identified by the working groups in session II are shown in the following Table.


Table 1: Main barriers and drivers identified in Session II Reporting of Group What is the target user group? What is the social practice to be targeted? Questions What drivers and barriers do you foresee for the implementation of a smart energy management system? Target group: Staff

Social practice: Reduce energy consumption levels in buildings

SUMMARY The main issue is the massive energy use in buildings, especially old ones, and the presence of large experimental facilities that can be demanding in terms of energy. To achieve the results, a key element is the segmentation and targeting of specific users’ groups. The participants proposed to target staff (researchers, administrative staff, management team, etc.) and external energy providers. An internal Energy Monitoring System exists in the institution, but users are not informed about the site’s energy consumption. BARRIERS DRIVERS Lack of financial resources devoted to New “European Green Deal” the subject Little staff awareness of changing social Willingness to keep up with the rapidly practice; Lack of communication evolving technology regarding energy consumption Information, training and raising Personal data protection awareness initiatives Heterogeneity of the site and its infrastructure (old/new buildings, and Scientific interest of staff in the topic offices/laboratories) Cultural differences among the international staff Economic savings (e.g. subjective concept of comfort) Management buy-in, rigid governance Improvement of wellbeing and reduction and regulation of environmental pollution Partial availability of energy-related data


Table 2: Outcomes of Session III part I: co-designing a solution How would you like to design such a system? Questions: What benefits would you see from it? Which data would you like to integrate? SUMMARY ü It was proposed to focus on one representative building of the site called Building 101 where an energy monitoring system would be developed. A specific building was identified because it is considered relatively new, hosts approximately 200 people, has a big recently renovated atrium with a social area and has screens installed that can be used for data visualisation. ü The proposal is to implement a system to monitor energy consumption (heating, cooling and electricity) and production from the PVs installed on the roof. At the initial stage, data could be collected only at building level since the available infrastructure does not allow collection of all data at office level. ü A collaborative challenge was be proposed so that all the staff working in the selected building could work together to reduce the building’s energy consumption. “We can foresee a long time window where we start collecting data and then launch a campaign that lasts a few weeks where everybody is committed to save as much energy as possible”1. The staff will be personally engaged in finding ways to reduce the energy bill for their building. ü It was proposed to organise a dedicated event to explain the project to the staff working at the selected building. The data will be visualised on the screens before, during and after the campaign. After the campaign, the staff will be invited to a co-evaluation meeting where the collected data will be made available, and the analysis and results will be presented. Feedback will be collected from the event.


Quote from participant to the workshop.


The results obtained in the second part of session III, Evaluate the proposed solution and modify it, are summarised here below: 1. Practical usefulness: reducing energy consumption of the buildings will save costs and raise awareness of the staff working in building 101. This could be re-invested in energy efficiency actions. 2. Financial benefits: the solution could decrease the energy bills and create a domino effect: “what we learn at work, we can use it when we are back home�. Also for a future emission trading scheme, the institution will have to pay for the CO2 emissions it will produce. If energy consumption is reduced, there will be fewer costs for the site management. 3. Ease of use: the infrastructure such as the metering devices for the Building Energy Monitoring System is, in part, already there; the co-designed solution should be as easy to use as possible. The System should be user-friendly for the staff. 4. Impact on habits: games and challenges could be developed to change the habits of the target group (staff). A long-term goal is important, such as targeting a zero-energy building, that the organisation is committed to achieving in its premises by 2030. 5. Emotional relationship: feeling part of the community, influencing together the energy consumption of the working space could be rewarding. At the end of the activity, the staff would feel proud, engaged and empowered. 6. Social influence: communication is essential in order to implement the plan. Specialists in this field could be involved to engage the staff. 7. Physical space: The infrastructure (metering devices and screens) are already there. There is no need to adapt the physical space. In order to change consumption on the long run, changing the default settings and the context of use is extremely important (Sunstein, 2017).


Conclusions The ideas discussed at the workshop and the solutions which emerged therein have been reviewed by the Living Lab team. An action plan is being proposed, detailing the main steps to be followed for the successful implementation of the proposed energy monitoring solution, as well as the phases for the development of the other two use cases discussed at the event. The identified actions – ranked in terms of priority and feasibility – will be brought to the attention of senior management, the site management, and all potentially interested contributors. In order to implement the proposed solutions, and to deliver on time, management buy-in and support from senior management is a essential to ensure the allocation of adequate financial, human and technical resources. To this aim, we would like to receive feedback on the following questions to help inform the action plan: what are the challenges ahead with the project? How can we motivate management to give the appropriate resources to implement the actions? How can we keep the staff engaged in the project?


References Dupont, L., Mastelic, J., Nyffeler, N., Latrille, S. & Seulliet, E. (2019). Living lab as a support to trust for co-creation of value: application to the consumer energy market. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 28(1), 53-78. European Commission (2013). Report from the commission to the European parliament and the council, Pogress by Member States towards Nearly ZeroEnergy Buildings, COM (2013) 483 final/2, European Commission. Retrieved from: Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6), 897–920. McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Fostering sustainable behavior through communitybased social marketing. American Psychologist, 55(5), 531-537. Sunstein, C.R. (2017). Default Rules Are Better Than Active Choosing (Often). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(8), 600–606.


Practitioners Presentation

Design Sprint as a Tool to Support Collaborative Planning of Green Infrastructure Authors Annamaria Rossi & Maija Bergstrรถm

Abstract Green infrastructure supports biodiversity and vitality of ecosystem services in urban environments, and is therefore crucial for the future urban development. A successful planning and implementation of green infrastructure require, however, cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration. Yet, the lack of this multidisciplinary collaboration has been identified to be one of the central factors challenging the planning and implementation of green infrastructure. This paper presents a case study of the Virtual Verdure project where a design sprint process was utilized as a tool for cross-sectoral joint development for developing multistakeholder planning process of green infrastructure.

Key words: Design Sprint, Living Lab, Green Infrastructure, Collaborative Planning, PublicPrivate-People Partnership


Green infrastructure (GI) supports biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) in urban environments. A successful planning and execution of GI requires, however, crosssectoral and multi professional collaboration. Virtual Verdure project, coordinated by the innovation company Forum Virium Helsinki, aimed to co-create an operating model that would holistically consider ecosystem services and green infrastructure in the planning process. This was pursued through a design sprint process and public-private collaboration. The case area for the project was in “Smart Kalasatama�, an area that has been utilized as an urban Living Lab in Helsinki. During the project the case area was still partly in a planning phase, which offered a good opportunity to implement living lab methodology for an ongoing planning process. The co-creation was supported by so called design sprints (orig. Google Ventures). Design sprint is a time-constrained innovation process that utilizes design thinking and multidisciplinary. The process consists of five phases: understand, define, sketch, decide, and prototype. In Virtual Verdure the model was applied in the context of urban planning, and adjusted to meet the needs of an infrastructure project and public-private collaboration. Within the project, three thematic design sprints were organized to bring experts from different sectors and fields together to co-create solutions and deepen their understanding on GI and its planning process.

Each sprint lasted two full working days, and consisted of an introduction part and multiple workshops focusing on chosen thematic challenge. The introduction part creates a common ground and starting point for the team’s co-creation process. The introduction can include for example keynote speakers or a guided walking tour that showcases already existing solutions in urban environments. In the workshops different types of approaches were utilized to enhance creative problem solving, such as model blocks, city planning maps and sketching street cross-sections. This kind of practical approach for problem solving facilitated discussion around GI and issues that must be taken into consideration when planning green urban environments. The method encouraged participants to raise questions and discuss important topics with other experts that they wouldn't otherwise probably encounter


in their work, and reflect the outcomes to real life planning cases. The design sprints created an open forum for sharing thoughts and opinions, and developing ideas across sectors and professional fields. They enabled continuance for the learning process and that way also enhanced commitment of the stakeholders to the development work. As a result, the city planners’ knowledge and understanding on GI and the multiple benefits it provides deepened. Also, collaboration with the companies provided a better understanding on the implementation and maintenance of GI solutions, which are crucial to take into account already in the planning phase. This in turn, will benefit the companies that produce GI into urban environments and enable more comprehensive and integrated green solutions in long term. The partner companies of the project got new insights for developing their green infrastructure related products and services. Working together with the public sector planners they got a better understanding of the needs of their potential customers, and one company for example identified a possible business opportunity in consulting the early phase planning of green infrastructure. The other company got a chance to bring a new planning tool to the Finnish planning context and test it during the design sprints with the city planners. After the project the company had a good base for developing the tool further and provide a more thorough ES based analysis for their customers, including the City of Helsinki. In the future, the design sprint process can be utilized in urban development projects, especially ones that require cross-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaboration and deal with a new topic, such as green infrastructure and its new solutions. The design sprint process is an efficient way to co-create solutions for greener and more sustainable cities and enhance public-private collaboration, and is a useful method to apply in Living Labs. However, to orchestrate a successful design sprint that supports cross-sectoral collaboration, requires careful planning, skilled facilitation and profound stakeholder engagement. The essential thing is to identify and engage the relevant stakeholder and make sure that the facilitation and coordination is carried out by a competent party. In the future, design sprints can also be utilized for example in citizen engagement and participation in urban planning and as a tool to organize Public-Private-People partnerships.

References Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 254–259. Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Actor roles in an urban living lab: What can we learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11), 22–27.


Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., & Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint: How to solve big problems and test new ideas in just five days. Simon and Schuster, New York. Lennon, M., Scott, M., Collier, M., & Foley, K. (2016). Developing green infrastructure ‘thinking’: Devising and applying an interactive group-based methodology for practitioners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(5), 843–865. Lähde, E. & Di Marino, M. (2019). Multidisciplinary collaboration and understanding of green infrastructure results from the cities of Tampere, Vantaa and Jyväskylä (Finland). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 40, 63–72. Matthews, T., Lo, A. Y., & Byrne, J. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing green infrastructure for climate change adaptation: Barriers to adoption and drivers for uptake by spatial planners. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 155-163. Puerari, E., De Koning, Jotte I. J. C., von Wirth, T., Karré, P. M., Mulder, I. J., & Loorbach, D. A. (2018). Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs. Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, 10(6), 1–18.


Research-in-progress, not published previously

The role of living labs in arts-led urban regeneration

Author Yana Voynova

Abstract The arts have significant potential to promote and sustain economic growth and development. This research aims to explore the role of living-labs and the use of co-creation as an effective policy instrument in culture-lead urban transformation, with practical evidence base for desired sustainability and economic transitions. The project will take the form of a series of comparative case studies of examples of livinglabs and arts co-creation and an analysis of their contribution to the integration and development of low-income areas. These case subjects are evaluated on a set of metrics such as GDP, GINI coefficient, formal market employment, and income inequality, in order to identify the key factors that make integration successful and compile a set of best practices for utilizing the potential of living-labs and arts cocreation in policy making and urban planning in a way that benefits local communities and negates the current consequences of gentrification.

Key words: Living-labs, Arts, Development, Urban Regeneration, Social Innovation


Submission details Introduction In the last decades we have observed a boom in developmental studies focusing on economic development using arts in a sustainable way of urban transformation that would protect low-income residents from harmful side effects such as gentrification. A body of empirical research and papers (Markusen & Schrock, 2006, Sterngold, 2004) illustrates the relationship between arts and development, the options for its measurement and an overview typology of arts-based community development approaches. Arts-lead urban regeneration has become instrumental in policymaking in many cities and re-attracting investments and knowledge (Miles, 2005). However, research has also noted that this approach poses challenges, such as growing social gaps and reproducing inequalities (Tay & Coca-Stefaniak, 2010), or ‘primacy of the state’s economic agenda’ at odds with the views of art practitioners (Kong, 2009), or the influence of globalization on arts-led regeneration and loss of authenticity (UNESCO, 2016). The aim of this research-in-progress is to understand the impact and added value of living labs in the context of the complex societal challenges such as sustainability, urban transition and regeneration, and in particular their role in addressing the above-mentioned challenges. It is relatively obvious that regeneration strategies need to maintain a firm understanding of the needs of places and communities and forge an integrated and networked approach in terms of policymaking in order to improve their chances of success (Coca-Stefaniak et al., 2009). Could living labs as an open innovation ecosystem based on a systematic user co-creation approach that integrates public and private, research and innovation activities in communities, placing citizens at the center of innovation with the help of various approaches, instruments, methods, and tools (Santonen et al., 2017) contribute to mitigating these risks by using their specific engagement, co-creation and know-how diffusion strategies?

Research methodology and data A widely accepted conceptual agreement that the core of living labs is cocreation or making something together. Based on a review of the comprehensive literature on the subject, five common elements of co-creation are identified. These are (1) the purpose of the co-creation; (2) formal and informal co-creation; (3) the ownership of the co-creation process; (4) the motivation and incentives for cocreation; and (5) the places/spaces of co-creation (Puerari et al., 2018). The research aims to identify from sustainability and policy development point of view which of these elements are relevant to effective and efficient arts-led urban regeneration processes, and in particular able to mitigate risks like further gentrification, loss of authenticity, deepening social gaps, unsustainable transformations.


This paper is part of my BA research that covers four case studies from four different countries around the world: Sofia, Seoul, Buenos Aires and San Francisco. In each of these cities the study focuses on specific neighborhoods and the different programs and organizations that have impacted their development and integration. The study employs a qualitative explorative approach in the form of surveys, interviews and post data-collection. A bottom-up theory building approach based on rich qualitative data, collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews, stakeholder discussions and questionnaires, on site observations and documentary information, is chosen. This living lab co-creation model is additionally evaluated on a set of metrics such as GDP, GINI coefficient, formal market employment, property value and income inequality, in order to assess the sustainable effects of the transformation processes. This approach will give us a better understanding of the previous, current and goal states that each program is going through and evaluate the level of improvement in terms of integration that has resulted from the implementation of co-creation programs. Specifically, the goal here is to narrow down which aspects of the living labs provide the best results in improving quality of life and integrating low-income areas in the long run, in order to focus future policies around them.

Scope of work done so far The Sofia-based study has been completed, including a two-month internship at SofiaLab – a member of ENoLL, on site observation of SofiaLab involvement in culture-led urban transformations in Zona Kultura (the post-industrial area around the freight station) and Toplotsentrala (the former heating plant). The study included 8 semi-structured in-depth interviews with SofiaLab staff and key stakeholders, 12 questionnaires with artists, residents and policy-makers, review of documentation related to the implementation of relevant projects such as “Festivals for Public Art: SOFIA CONTEMPORARY and Open-air Festival in Zapaden Park”, funded by Operational Programme “Regional Development”, co-financed by European Regional Development Fund, "Development of Philanthropy in the Local Community – Innovation Fund", funded by the Workshop for Civic Initiatives Foundation under the "Local Philanthropy Leadership" Programme, with the financial support of Charles Stewart Mott Foundation. The study also observed the development of a project proposal that has subsequently received funding (AGORA - Advanced coGeneration Options for Reintegrating local Assets, funded by Interreg Danube transnational programme). The rest of the case studies have not been completed yet although certain research aspects are in progress – desk research, questionnaires and interviews – to a various extent.


Preliminary results Co-creation is sometimes believed to be able to achieve variegated positive effects and address most of the known deficits of other modes of urban regeneration and planning. However, the research so far identifies the following three aspects as most relevant and successful to support arts-lead urban regeneration: 1. Employing co-creation and co-design is a means to broaden participation and citizen engagement. SofiaLab has applied a variety of engagement methods ranging from open days in former industrial buildings to photo reporting to city walks with checklists, innovation camps, civic hackathons and more. Cocreation starts with the strategic goal of the engagement of a critical mass of citizens, and develops into a process of identifying solutions and producing common values – unlike other labs focusing on products or technology. Thus, the two aspects of co-creation purpose validate each other and give credibility to the process. The learning component is critical for the mid-term perspective and requires additional targeted efforts. To strengthen learning, capacity building and empowerment SofiaLab has developed and manages an annual Cultural Management Academy for artists, cultural operators and practitioners, as a specific knowledge process. 2. The purpose of co-creation is strongly interlinked with ownership, another aspect of great importance to sustainable and successful arts-lead urban transformation. In the cases studied the process was launched by a core group of initiators with some support from the local authorities. The critical foundation for co-creation is the vision-forming and getting stakeholders around an appealing shared idea of the future. Based on this in the case of SofiaLab the ownership is gradually transferred to artists and residents, both part of the core group and a broader, newly attracted group. 3. Arts-lead urban transformation is by definition place-based; therefore, the spatial element of co-creation is vital. Having physical spaces for transformation and experimentation is a precondition for fundamental change. These new/reclaimed spaces trigger the rise of new narratives and strategic storytelling. The discursive element itself becomes part of the transformative place-making, while constantly creating visibility fosters openness to change in the making.


Discussion and conclusions Based on the context in which the completed research was done, two tentative conclusions arise: 1. Living Labs engagement and “learning by experimenting” as a vivid urban transformation approach seems to be very successful for early stage planning or policy development related to transformative place-making. 2. Living lab practices co-creation practices seem to be less effective for sustainable urban arts-led regeneration in the mid-term, particularly in terms of diffusion and transfer of know-how and knowledge to key stakeholders – artists and residents – and therefore process ownership could become problematic. Even if the process is initiated as a community-driven effort, if the co-creation is managed by the living lab as intermediaries and its aim is a form of test situation, a lot of additional activities and policy measures are needed to balance the plurality of interests, to build the capacity and empower users in the framework of transition management and social sustainability. The economic data supports this tentative conclusion that the urban transformation may be unsustainable renewal unless there is an ongoing specific interaction and joint responsibility. Living Labs with no fixed buildings or spaces, or whose space does not coincide with the regeneration area, struggle most to achieve systematic change in urban transformation. Due to the complexity of the social infrastructure in the selected case studies it is likely that different co-creation dynamics might be identified. The comparative research focuses on a diverse set of subject programs in four major cities in four different continents as a way to identify a universal set of best practices and elements of co-creation that yield most significant and sustainable results, in order to use those as the foundation of further developmental policies. When completed, the research would aim to draw conclusions for utilizing co-creation as an effective policy instrument in culture-lead urban transformation, with practical evidence base for desired sustainability and economic transitions.


References Coca-Stefaniak, J. A., Parker, C., Quin, S., Rinaldi, R., & Byrom, J. (2009). Town centre management models: A European perspective. Cities, 26(2), 74–80. Kong, L. (2009). Making Sustainable Creative/Cultural Space in Shanghai and Singapore*. Geographical Review, 99(1), 1–22. Markusen, A., & Schrock, G. (2006). The artistic dividend: Urban artistic specialisation and economic development implications. Urban studies, 43(10), 1661-1686. Miles, I. (2005). Knowledge intensive business services: Prospects and policies. Foresight, 7(6), 39– 63. Puerari, E., De Koning, J. I. J. C., Von Wirth, T., Karré, P. M., Mulder, I. J., & Loorbach, D. A. (2018). Co-Creation Dynamics in Urban Living Labs. Sustainability, 10(6), 1893. Santonen, T., Creazzo, L., Griffon, A., Bódi, Z., & Aversano, P. (2017). Cities as Living Labs: Increasing the impact of investment in the circular economy for sustainable cities [Publication]. European Commission. Sterngold, A. H. (2004). Do economic impact studies misrepresent the benefits of arts and cultural organizations?. The journal of arts management, law, and society, 34(3), 166-187. Tay, P.-C., & Coca-Stefaniak, J. A. (2010). Cultural urban regeneration practice and policy in the UK and Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management, 7(1), Article 1. Unesco. (2016). Culture Urban Future: Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. Massgraficc & Dhita.


Practitioners Presentation

Blending artistic and living lab approaches to engage with foreign citizens Authors: Isis Gouedard and Damien Gauthier, KoKrea Lab, Geneva, Switzerland Nicolas Croquet and Sonia Miny, FBIProd “Le sismographe”, Geneva, Switzerland Abstract: LET’S VOTE!... is an inclusive multidisciplinary project at the service of citizens as part of the 2020 Citizen Challenge. The Challenge was mandated by the Bureau for the Integration of Foreigners of the Canton of Geneva (BIE) to encourage participation in the 2020 local election by foreign residents who have the right to vote at the communal level. During a three months period, we invited the local populations to participate in developing solutions to mobilize voters, especially foreigners by applying aggregated methodologies combining two complementary processes: the development of the power to act and the mobilization of citizens through participatory artistic interventions in the public space. The project had both a direct impact, raising residents’ awareness on the subject and implementing solutions on the ground in view of the elections, and an indirect one with data collection and experimentation that can be exploited in the longer term and potentially on a larger scale. This approach proved that a participative artistic and gamified field approach coupled with a process inspired by Design Thinking and the principles of Living Labs produces a highly inclusive methodology bringing engagement and attention on the field trough a plurality of medium, and was especially effective to get attention through children, hence reaching women population, which, according to our findings, are less exposed to political knowledge than the men of the households. Key words: Integration, Foreigners, Migrants, Citizenship, Political participation, Local democracy, Recognition, Inclusion, Artistic approach, Participatory manifestation Contact:


TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 SHORT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................ 3 PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS .......................................................................................................... 4 TARGET POPULATION ........................................................................................................... 4 COLLABORATIONS WITH OTHER ASSOCIATIONS AND ORGANISATIONS .................... 4 GOALS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT .......................................................................... 5

PROJECT CONTEXT: WHY THIS PROJECT TODAY ................................................... 6 SITUATION AT THE TIME OF THE PROJECT ....................................................................... 6 PROJECT'S MOTIVATION ...................................................................................................... 7

METHODOLOGY: FIELD PRESENCE, DESIGN THINKING AND LIVING LABS ......... 8 MEETING CITIZENS IN THE FIELD........................................................................................ 8 DESIGN THINKING APPROACH AND LIVING LABS ............................................................ 9

ACTIVITY REPORT ....................................................................................................... 10 PHASE 1: EMPATHY AND PLAYFUL ENCOUNTERS IN THE FIELD ................................ 10

RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS ....................................................................................... 11

PHASE 2: IDENTIFICATION OF FRICTION POINTS AND IDEATION OF SOLUTIONS VIA DESIGN THINKING ................................................................................... 13 PARTICIPANTS AND STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP ............................................................... 13

PHASE 3: CREATION OF PROTOTYPE SOLUTIONS ......................................................... 17 PROXIMITY CAMPAIGN ON POPULAR THEMES ............................................................................ 17 VOTER'S PHYSICAL JOURNEY ....................................................................................................... 18 ORIGAMI-BASED PARTICIPATORY ARTWORK .............................................................................. 19 PHASE 4: ARTISTIC INAUGURATION TO THE POPULATION ......................................................... 20 CITIZEN GAME ................................................................................................................................. 21

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 24 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 25


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank in particular the Bureau d'Intégration des Étrangers de la République et Canton de Genève for the trust they have placed in us and for their moral and financial support. We would also like to thank the various neighbourhood associations, as well as the City of Geneva offices with whom we have had the opportunity to collaborate.


INTRODUCTION SHORT DESCRIPTION LET’S VOTE!... An inclusive multidisciplinary approach at the service of citizens as part of the 2020 Citizen Challenge. Through the "15/03" scheme, Geneva has mobilised its residents for the municipal elections of 15 March and 5 April 2020. A major information campaign was carried out with the aim of encouraging participation, in particular by foreign residents who have the right to vote at the communal level. In this context, a citizens' challenge was launched in the form of a call for projects aimed at fostering a positive collective dynamic to increase participation in relation to the last communal elections in 2015. Our team submitted the project "LET’S VOTE!..." for the Charmilles-Europe district in Geneva. This project combined art with a co-creative design approach putting local stakeholders at the heart of the process. From January to March 2020, "LET’S VOTE!..." has invited the residents of the district to participate in the development of solutions to mobilize voters, especially foreigners. To do this, we applied and aggregated methodologies combining two complementary processes: - the development of the power to act and the mobilization of citizens through participatory artistic interventions in the public space. - an approach inspired by Design Thinking and the principles of Living Labs, a method of co-creating innovative solutions in which the populations and stakeholders are placed at the heart of the process. The different stages had both a direct impact, raising residents’ awareness on the subject, implementing solutions on the ground in view of the elections, and an indirect one, with data collection and experimentation that can be exploited in the longer term and potentially on a larger scale. In a few short events, the artists, mediators and facilitators of the project proposed to the residents of the district to become actors of this citizen mobilization.


PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS Our activities were divided into four time-periods from January to March 2020. 1. Second fortnight of January: fun events and data collection in the public space. Residents were invited to create Origamis and to write proposals for solutions that would make it easier for them and their fellow citizens to vote. 2. Late January to mid-February: empathy, ideation and prototyping workshops. Users (voluntary residents), public and private actors (mobilised in particular within neighbourhood organisations, state actors and researchers) took part in a series of workshops in order to use the proposals collected to define the voter's path, select one or more ideas and implement them in practice. 3. Mid-February to early March: while in the heart of the neighbourhood the artist CELION produced an artwork made up of the residents’ Origamis, the project team prototyped the solutions resulting from the collaborative workshop. 4. First fortnight of March: festive inauguration of the artistic installation and implementation in the neighbourhood of the co-constructed solutions, encouraging the mobilisation of voters, especially in the target group. These different stages had both a direct impact, making the question known, implementing solutions on the ground in preparation for the March elections, and an indirect one with data collection and experimentation that could be exploited in the longer term and potentially on a larger scale.

TARGET POPULATION Our project targeted primarily the foreign residents of the Europe district in Geneva, Switzerland, and by extension its surroundings, in particular those who frequent the places that are invested. Although foreign residents are particularly central to the reflection, it was not restricted to that population. Indeed, in order to give impetus, the proposed measures also included new opportunities for participation for all those who already enjoy political rights, whether foreign or national. Throughout the project, we were able to interact directly with 120 people from the neighbourhood as well as with many local associations.






We have been fortunate to have been able to work closely with several organizations on the ground, with very positive feedback. The team of Espace de quartier le 99 provided us with meeting rooms. They also helped us to contextualize our proposal with regard to the population and relayed the information and communication of the actions to their users. The associations Forum 1203, and Dimanches 99 also supported us by relaying information and by their knowledge of the neighbourhood. The association Rinia Contact, which has been working for several years on citizenship, was able to participate in the ideation workshops and brought its expertise to the choice of relevant


solutions. The residents' associations of the Ciel mon Quartier neighbourhood, ALPN and Charmilles 1203 also generously supported the approach. Finally, the "Planète Charmilles" shopping centre and the SPG management welcomed us to their space to meet the residents through our various interventions.

GOALS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT We were able to identify the benefits, changes and positive impacts listed below for our action. However, given the particular context around the March 2020 elections, especially due to Covid-19, it was unfortunately impossible to observe and quantify the direct impacts on participation. Primary/direct benefits: - Increased awareness of the possibility of voting for foreigners and its usefulness; - Involvement of foreign populations in local politics (information and integration); - Encouragement of participatory approaches by local actors; - Collecting data on the understanding of local populations through the process of empathy (which can provide multiple answers in the long term); - Collaboration of local actors among themselves, who supported and collaborated with us during the co-creation phases of the project (Design Thinking); - Implementation of concrete solutions tested at the local level. Secondary/indirect benefits - Promotion of the integration of foreign populations in the neighbourhood; - Co-creation leading to greater adoption of the solutions found; - Enhanced civic feeling and better involvement in local life; - Interaction with experts in the field and increasing the competence of local actors. - Replicable methodology resulting from experimentation; - Results that can be exploited on a larger scale.


PROJECT CONTEXT: WHY THIS PROJECT TODAY Culture is a tool for social cohesion. Exchanges around a unifying creative action break down barriers. The proposal invites social mixing and encounters between generations and is created and carried out around sharing and handing down. An approach that should give the greatest number of people the opportunity to identify culture, as a common ground that creates links. Inspired by the principle of "new sponsors", we proposed to give the residents the opportunity to be concretely a force for proposals. We used art as a mouthpiece for citizens' appetites and as a medium for participation. This participative artistic approach was coupled with a process inspired by Design Thinking and the principles of Living Labs. The result is a highly iterative and inclusive approach that aims to bring together and condense different points of view to create a global and shared vision. The idea is to find the users where they live and have them become actors in the process based on the principle of "user-driven" innovation.

SITUATION AT THE TIME OF THE PROJECT Foreign nationals in Geneva may take part in voting and elections and sign lists of candidates in their commune of residence, as well as sign initiatives and referendum requests, if they meet the following conditions: - be of legal age (over 18 years of age); - have been legally resident in Switzerland for at least 8 years; - be domiciled in the canton. However, the observation is clear: there is a significant and recurrent gap between the political participation of Swiss citizens and the lesser participation of foreign residents. Fibbi and Ruedin (2016) studied this phenomenon during the 2015 elections. They observe that "the campaign ["I am 8 years old"] enabled one foreigner in six to learn for the first time about his or her right to vote and, even if not everyone made use of it, it helped to increase the participation rate of foreigners [and to reduce the existing gap] with the Swiss population". However, they deplore the fact that, in addition to the lack of interest in the elections mentioned by half of the respondents, "non-participation is linked to a lack of knowledge of their rights, of the candidates running for election, and of the electoral system", which is "all the more surprising given that the exercise of the right to vote in Switzerland is automatic and not subject to prior registration on the electoral roll, and that foreign nationals have received a personalised letter from the authorities inviting them to take part in the vote.�


PROJECT'S MOTIVATION As Gianni and Sanchez-Mazas (2018) noted in their study on the involvement of civic practices, "it is perfectly acceptable, even from a democratic point of view, for individuals to choose not to participate [in elections]. On the other hand, it is necessary that this non-participation be a choice, not a lack of formal opportunities or the result of informal barriers arising from a lack of social, cultural or linguistic resources. " The report by Gianni and Sanchez-Mazas (2018) puts forward two theses: "First, it is necessary from the point of view of democratic inclusion to grant foreign residents opportunities for political participation. Second, certain unconventional opportunities for political participation allow the development of social cohesion of the community as a whole and constitute incentives for the use of political rights. " The report suggests the establishment of a "deliberative forum, understood as a space for discussion in which disagreements between participants representing the community can be peacefully expressed with a view to developing points of convergence". We are in line with this study and hope to enrich it with a phase co-created by the community, during meetings that go beyond the debate. They allow a concrete, pragmatic and quick implementation of actions in order to galvanize this The "general democratic deepening at local level" referred to by Gianni and SanchezMazas (2018) "is the best way to foster integration and social cohesion in society; the participation of national residents on an equal footing with foreign residents is a necessity to this end. They need opportunities to build a sense of 'us', a sense of belonging to the immediate environment, and a sense of self-worth and of others in their uniqueness, which will, in turn, contribute to the building of a sense of citizenship. Thus, beyond the awareness and sensitization produced by the project, the public is no longer a consumer, but an actor and visionary for its territory.�


METHODOLOGY: FIELD PRESENCE, DESIGN THINKING AND LIVING LABS Our project has primarily targeted the foreign residents of the Europe district, and by extension its surroundings, who frequent the places that have been invested. Although foreign residents are particularly central to the reflection, it is not restricted to this population. Indeed, in order to give impetus, the proposed measures also provide new opportunities for participation for all those who already enjoy political rights, whether foreign or national. Gianni and Sanchez-Mazas (2018) state that "the pooling of academic, associative and administrative (cantonal and communal) resources [makes it possible] to reconcile theoretical input with the realities on the ground, both from the point of view of the authorities and from that of civil society. A partnership of this type makes it possible to achieve concrete results that are theoretically coherent and justified, and directly applicable by the public authorities with the help of the voluntary sector". It should be noted that 41% of the foreign respondents found that the letter accompanying the campaign was important in their choice to participate, reinforcing the importance of reaching out to populations during information campaigns (Fibbi and Ruedin, 2016). Based on these findings, we believe that the active involvement of communities in promoting the right to vote for foreign nationals will lead to greater involvement on the part of the population, better integration and an exacerbated civic feeling, resulting in an increase in knowledge of the right to vote for foreigners as well as an increase in voter turnout.

MEETING CITIZENS IN THE FIELD Our approach combines empowerment and citizen mobilization through participatory artistic interventions in the public space combined with a Living Lab approach to innovative design. The device's field approach places events as the voice of the project's actors, creating astonishment and surprise on the ground, where the populations are. The programme of each event is multifaceted: artistic, citizen and scientific. It allows the public to discover citizen actions mixed with quality artistic creations. The participative aspect is a central motivation. A diversity of proposals that nourishes the cultural plurality that constitutes a dynamic of social cohesion. This synergy between presence on the ground at the beginning and end of the project and the scientific approach at the centre ensures the inclusion of the target public throughout the process and places them at the centre of the device, the heart of the Living Lab methodology.


DESIGN THINKING APPROACH AND LIVING LABS Living Labs have emerged as a new open and inclusive approach to innovation in which users are no longer seen as an object of investigation, but as key players in the innovation process. Based around a strong core of the project team co-created with all the different stakeholders (experts, field actors, citizens...), the approach promotes a co-creation process with end-users in real conditions and relies on an ecosystem of public-privatecitizen partnerships.

A project following this methodology is carried out in 4 phases: 1. Understanding: empathy and playful encounters in the field 2. Exploring: identifying areas for improvement and developing solutions 3. Materialize: making a prototype and presenting it to the population. 4. Measuring: Inauguration and testing with target populations


ACTIVITY REPORT PHASE 1: EMPATHY AND PLAYFUL ENCOUNTERS IN THE FIELD The empathy phase aims to gain an in-depth understanding of the context and levers of electoral participation, particularly of foreigners. It is crucial to involve the target population as much as possible during this phase in order to draw up a local, comprehensive and representative landscape, avoiding bias of social and cultural affiliations. To this end, we organized a playful event in the public space over three half-days on 16, 18 and 19 January 2020. The artist CELION and the mediators of the association invited the residents, through an artistic practice of Origami, to express and log their ideas on the theme: "What would motivate me to vote?”. This original collection of data allows for exchange and encounters. This first contact also let the residents leave their contact details to participate in the next steps of the project.

Figure 1. Field activity "origami" at shopping centre Planète Charmille The set-up consisted of a large table where participants were invited to take a seat to make a simple origami with the artist, who ignited the dialogue. The mediators also interacted in the surrounding area, going out to meet the residents and offering them dialogue and the optional creation of an origami on the same model. The place of interaction varied between outdoors on the Promenade de l'Europe and inside the Planète Charmille shopping centre. This perspective of meeting people in a proactive way ensures a better mix of the affected population, avoiding a selection bias due to personal attraction to origami or subject. Art plays a mediating role, inducing dialogue and poking curiosity on the one hand, and a sublimating role, allowing free personal expression and the use of metaphor as a vector for dialogue on the other hand. Additionally, the children's attraction to the workshop made it even easier to approach families.


The themes addressed by the mediators were the following (with questions and exchange guides): ● Impact of elections: Do you know what the impact of an election is? What do the communal counsellors do? What is the impact of their decisions on your daily life? ● Motivations and brakes: What made you vote/not vote in the last election/poll? What has or could motivate you to do so? What could make it easier for you? ● Understanding Swiss politics: Do you know that you can vote? Do you understand the Geneva political landscape? In relation to your country? Do you have a specific example? What have you done to better understand? What could help you? ● Socio-demographic context of the person: Age, origin and nationality, gender. The mediators were also on the lookout for any other information or anecdotes that would help them gain a more precise and singular understanding of the interviewee. RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS The people interviewed during this phase made up a varied cosmopolitan landscape. We were able to interact with 74 people, 51% of whom were women, 14% under 25 and 25% over 60. Their nationalities are distributed as follows: Switzerland (15% including 2 German-speaking), Portugal (5), Arab (3), Spain (2), Italy (2), France (2), Venezuela, Macedonia, Albania, Colombia, Czech Republic, Argentina, Paraguay, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Ivory Coast. The act of voting is perceived as civically important by half of the participants (49% of the participants, 52% of whom are foreign nationals) who say they vote to "give their opinion" or "express themselves", with several people citing school or parental education as a determining factor in this opinion. Some people expressed a desire to vote for "not letting others decide for us". The fact that it is a civic "duty" is often cited by participants. However, 26% (40% of whom are Swiss) say they do not trust politicians, either because they do not believe in continuity between electoral promises and actions once elected ("they do what they want") or because they are afraid of a lack of representativeness ("the elected do not represent minorities"). Participants also often refer to a recent political "scandal" that allegedly undermined their confidence in representatives. In addition, 20% of the respondents (63% of whom are Swiss) explain that they do not have the necessary confidence in their representatives. see no interest or impact in the act of voting and vote only if they can make a direct connection with their daily life. Among other reasons, two people mentioned that they were "too old" to vote and wanted to "make room for the young" and three people said they did not vote because "the country is doing well". Thus, it appears that despite a stated willingness to participate in politics, most respondents have difficulty acting on it. The majority of respondents cited lack of time as the main reason, attributed mainly to two factors: access to information and understanding of information.


On the one hand, information sent in an official manner is considered difficult to understand, jargon-heavy or complex by 16% of participants (regardless of the language barrier present for some foreign populations). The questions are found to be "twisted" and "tricky" and some deplore the lack of "citizenship training". Some were able to benefit from assistance from social workers or information sessions, but others were unable to attend due to limited availability. Many foreigners said they needed help from a relative, family or friend to understand and "tell them what to vote". This renunciation of political autonomy can be potentially dangerous in some cases, such as a participant who lets a higher-ranking colleague fill out the ballot paper for her. On the other hand, access to knowledge is perceived as time-consuming by people who "don't have time to care" and have "other problems, such as babysitting". In the data gathered, the overwhelming majority cited television as their main mean of information. This being often the prerogative of the men in the household contributes to the point mentioned above. Some also mention a lack of exposure through social media ("information is not where I am, on social networks"). Certain applications such as EasyVote or SmartVote were favoured by several participants, who regretted not having an equivalent for local elections. While the plurality of voting methods is often cited as a motivation for voting (electronic voting, voting by post, physical voting at the polling station, etc.), some people mention a point of vigilance: the period of time between the reception of the voting material and the first possible day of dispatch. In fact, three people state that they are not immediately interested because "no one talks about the elections when they receive the papers" and so they wait to see the first posters or television programme to think about it again. They mentioned that they had several times forgotten to vote simply by mistake and let the voting deadline pass even though they "wanted to be able to vote right away". Finally, helping factors are also noted, such as the fact that postal voting is free of charge or that meeting at the polling station creates social contact ("we meet up with friends and go for a drink after we have voted"). The above results show a great diversity in the citizens' voting behaviour, especially with regard to foreign citizens. The blocking and facilitating factors were thus counted and used as raw material for the next phase of the process.


PHASE 2: IDENTIFICATION OF FRICTION POINTS AND IDEATION OF SOLUTIONS VIA DESIGN THINKING This phase mobilises target populations and local representatives to identify key ideas and jointly devise solutions to encourage voting. The participatory aspect of this phase ensures that the solutions envisaged are rooted in local soil, as they come from the field through co-creation. Different types of stakeholders were present during a workshop facilitated by the project team. We organized this co-creation workshop (lasting about 3 hours) at the most opportune moment to allow maximum participation while leaving sufficient time for the implementation of the co-constructed solutions before the election date. We held this Design Thinking workshop session at the 99 neighborhood house on February 1, 2020. The 99 is a place open to the neighbourhood allowing a proximity with the residents met in the first phase and the representatives of the organisations of the neighbourhood (target public) participating in the workshop. We previously analysed and took up the information collected during the first phase in order to use it as a starting point for reflection. PARTICIPANTS AND STRUCTURE OF THE WORKSHOP The workshop was attended by nine participants, including one local resident, two representatives of local associations, one university representative, two Swiss citizens not living in the neighbourhood and three foreign citizens. We were fortunate to benefit from the participation of Victor Sanchez-Mazas, co-author of the study Integration Through Citizens' Practices Final report of the project Unconventional political participation of foreign residents (Gianni and Sanchez-Mazas, 2018). The objective of the session was threefold: 1. to identify the inhibitors and propellers concerning the act of voting; 2. to prioritize the inhibitors and propellers and to select two candidates for ideating a prototype solution; 3. to draw up a concrete implementation plan for the 15 March 2020 deadline.


To do this, we conducted a collaborative activity called "force field analysis". This tool was created by Kurt Lewin, an American psychologist, who used it first of all in his missions in social psychology (Kurt, 1943). Today, this method is widely used to facilitate decision making by analyzing the driving and resisting forces inducing a situation. In this working model, the object of study is represented in the centre of a panel or whiteboard, while the forces are represented by arrows leading to the object from the left side for the driving forces and from the right side for the resisting forces. The forces present are then measured according to a reference criterion, such as their influence or, in this case, their frequency of occurrence in the field. First, the participants reflect for a short moment alone on the positive levers or obstacles to citizen participation in general and more specifically of the target population. They write down their ideas, one by one on post-its. During this time, the post-its from the field analyses are pasted by the project team on a board representing the driving and opposing forces (the force field).

Figure 2. Force field analysis board The participants' proposals are then added and collectively categorized as "forces" influencing the exercise of civil rights. The forces are thus identified and categorized, and then named collaboratively. The number of post-its per force then gives a measure of their relative importance in the field study and among the representatives of local associations and citizens present.


The driving forces (propellers) identified are, in descending order of number of mentions: - The communication made around the elections - Political and civic awareness - Help from other people (social worker or relative) - the tools available, such as EasyVote The resistance forces (inhibitors) identified are, in descending order of number of mentions: - Lack of interest - Lack of time - The complexity of the explanations and questions - Lack of information and forgetting the deadline - Socio-demographic variables and sense of belonging - The language barrier - Mistrust of politics - Perceived lack of support - Lack of access to the media In order to prioritize the forces, the participants then vote, using coloured stickers, to choose the forces on which they are most motivated to pursue the ideation phase. Two themes clearly emerge: - Citizenship training - Simplification of the system The third part of the workshop is dedicated to planning the concrete implementation of a prototype. It begins by separating the participants into two groups. An individual idea is then conducted followed by a pooling around each chosen theme, followed by a presentation of their conclusions to all participants and a selection of the best ideas by voting.


Figure 3. Ideation free, on the left "simplifying the system", on the right "citizenship training". Two ideas were retained for the prototype: 1. A proximity campaign with themes imposed on the candidates who would be proposed by the residents via a poll and voted by a majority. 2. An action in the public space materialized by a line on the ground creating a citizen's path to the polling station. The teams then mix again according to each other's interests and the workshop then concludes with the creation of a draft implementation plan using a "What? / Who? / Where? / When?� matrix. This ensures that the important actors and constraints for implementation have been taken into account. It emerges that the proximity campaign requires the intervention of several local actors, particularly for the publication and sharing of the survey to gather the opinions of the residents. On the other hand, the action of materialising a route in the public space seems to be easier to set up because it requires less involvement from outsiders. It is also perceived as playful, engaging and relevant in the context of the inauguration of the artistic work during the last phase of the project.


PHASE 3: CREATION OF PROTOTYPE SOLUTIONS In our project methodology, the approach does not stop at an exploratory study, but also seeks to concretize the solutions identified in the form of prototypes in order to gather feedback from the target audience and form a virtuous circle of continuous improvement. So we seek to ensure that the proposed solutions are well received by the public and to gather rapid feedback in order to improve the solution, or even modify it if it proves to be irrelevant. PROXIMITY CAMPAIGN ON POPULAR THEMES The first solution proposed during the Design Thinking workshop was an outreach campaign with themes imposed on the candidates that would be proposed by the residents via a poll and voted by majority. The idea was to build response flyers as a poll on the most important topics for the local population, and to place them in popular places in the neighborhood such as bars, libraries, meeting places... The themes to be addressed in the survey were provided during the workshop, notably by Victor Sanchez-Mazas on the basis of his study with Professor Gianni (Gianni and Sanchez- Mazas, 2018). They were as follows: Employment; Security; Integration; Crèches and early childhood; Health insurance; Environment; Waste sorting and sustainable development; Social assistance; Administrative assistance; Culture; Housing; Mobility and transport; Accessibility; Other topic (left open). Participants could select up to 3 topics. The subjects favoured by the population would then be proposed to the candidates for election so that they could give an answer one week before the voting day, during the inauguration of the work and the closing of the project. It quickly became apparent that, due to the appearance of Coronavirus in the media, the logistical impact of distribution and collection from a sufficiently large number of places in the neighbourhood made the prototyping of this solution hazardous. So we decided to reduce the ambitions of this prototype and to publish an online survey to collect the topics of interest of the local population. This survey was relayed on social networks in order to reach as many people as possible as quickly as possible. This online survey met with mixed success, despite many views (177 views) with a completion rate of 4%, potentially attributable to the context and medium. The impossibility of calling on local candidates in view of the situation with regard to rallies may also have been a factor, as the impact of the responses given was greatly diminished.


VOTER'S PHYSICAL JOURNEY The second solution co-designed during the workshop was an action in the public space materialized by a line on the ground creating a citizen path to the polling station. This path would extend around the Promenade de l'Europe and would lead to the polling station via the spot of the artistic installation and other local association’s stands, providing answers to the various questions of the citizens. Outside the hours of presence, the route markings would serve as a beacon to pique the curiosity and increase the political awareness of the residents. To do this, small posters could be installed in strategically visible places, such as trees, posts, balustrades or public benches. This would make it possible to deliver simple and quick information, cut into several "manageable steps" written in simple and direct language. This network would then form a playful and educational treasure hunt, allowing everyone to receive information at their own pace and in small touches, thus promoting knowledge retention. Unfortunately, the authorisations to create a marking on the floor could not be delivered in time between the workshop and the inauguration, forcing us to build the route differently and on a restricted perimeter of the inauguration site opposite “Espace 99�. However, this perimeter was met with great success at the inauguration and was the trigger for discussions and interactions with the residents of the neighbourhood passing through, thus fulfilling its function despite the reduction in size and scope.

Figure 4. 150m ribbon with inscriptions indicating the prototype of the voter's route


ORIGAMI-BASED PARTICIPATORY ARTWORK At the same time, and to encourage sharing, a work made up of the origami of the residents was created by the artist CELION. This work serves both as a support for the current initiative and as a pretext to engage in conversation with the population. This evolving and moving art installation in the public space is built to arouse curiosity and surprise, a timely circumstance of mediation to support the presentation of the prototyping work.

Figure 5. The artist CELION restoring the artwork Unfortunately, the participatory work in the public space was vandalized a few days before the inauguration. The artist came back and called for help from local people. In the end, this created stronger empathy, buy-in and a wider knowledge of the project. Even before its official inauguration, the work had thus already fulfilled its role as a social mediator, created reactions and shown that an act in the public space is always a political act in its primary sense.


PHASE 4: ARTISTIC INAUGURATION TO THE POPULATION The restored art installation was inaugurated to the public on March 7, 2020, along with the co-created solutions set up in the neighbourhood, encouraging the mobilization of voters.

Figure 6. Participatory artwork based on origami The place of activity extended in front of “Espace 99” on the Promenade de l'Europe in order to take place at the heart of the district's animation. The ribbon of the voter's route was drawn from the Planète Charmilles shopping centre to the children's playground on the other side of the square, zigzagging between trees and streetlights to occupy maximum length and ensure visibility. In addition to the work itself, two stands were set up to interact with the citizens: an information stand about the elections where speakers answered questions and promoted awareness about politics, civic education, and ongoing action. Indeed, the complexity of the official leaflets, the lack of information and the lack of knowledge of the political landscape being among the main reasons for abstention from voting, this stand offered assistance on those themes. The stand was also accompanied by an open buffet, which was offered from at selected times to encourage debate. Many people came to share and exchange ideas over a drink, including one of the residents interviewed during the first phase of the project, who was interested in seeing the outcome of the project.


Figure 7. Spatial set up of activity zones

CITIZEN GAME The second stand at the inauguration consisted of a citizen's game designed during the last phase of the project. Following the principle of the game of Snakes and Ladders, the participants threw an oversized foam dice to have their avatar advance on a giant board. Each square on the board was associated with a theme that was brought up during the Design Thinking workshop or the empathic encounter phase on the ground: "I vote"; "I gather information"; "my dreams for Geneva"; "my elected representatives"; "motivations"; and "challenges". Each box included a question on the theme associated with the box. If the player answered correctly, he or she could roll the dice again. Finally, as in a classic game of Snakes And Ladders, some squares offered a bonus for "motivations" or "civic actions" and others a penalty for "challenges". The questions were further separated into "adult" and "child" versions so that the activity could cater for the whole family. The number of dice rolls required to complete the game was about six, which translated into about 5 to 10 minutes for a game. Each winner (i.e., all participants) also left with a civic "Cootie Catcher" origami containing a few questions/answers from the game selected for their relevance to be repeated as a family. One of these questions was answered by a series of links for further information, the goal being to extend the impact of the presence in the field to homes.


Figure 8. Custom Snakes And Ladders citizen game for adults and children The aim of the game was to provide basic information about civic education for the people of Geneva. An example of an "adult" question was "Which of the following proposals can municipal representatives take decisions on? a) The sorting of waste in my commune. b) The construction of a new theatre. c) The development of a park. d) The age of retirement�. One of the "child" questions was "Which of the following political parties exists? Yellow, Green, Violet?� The game was a great success and many families tried it. The playful and clearly visible aspect helped to establish a dialogue, which in turn led to explanations about the Swiss political system and civic reflection.


Figure 9. Foldable “Cootie Catcher�: game trophy, information dissemination, and memory token


CONCLUSION The initiative "Let's Vote! " has directly affected more than 120 residents of the Europe district as well as numerous actors from local communities and associations. There was a strong commitment during the different actions, in particular for the co-creation workshop where local authorities were present as well as the academic world represented by one of the UNIGE experts on the subject of integration through citizen practices, Victor Sanchez-Mazas. We proved that a participative artistic approach coupled with a process inspired by Design Thinking and the principles of Living Labs produces a highly iterative and inclusive methodology bringing together and condensing different points of view to create a global and shared vision. By fostering encounters with people where they live and have them become actors in the process, we create powerful "user-driven" innovation. This mobilization, as well as the quality of the exchanges and the answers provided, both in the information gathering and the ideation phases, make the initiative "Let’s Vote! " a success and a proof that such a concept of a Living Lab approach combining an empathetic meeting of the population in the field, artistic contribution and Design Thinking is quite appropriate to explore and respond to societal issues. Unfortunately, the situation at the end of February 2020 with the appearance and spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus made it very difficult to develop prototypes of the solution and above all to hold the inauguration of the artistic work and the end-ofproject presentation. Indeed, this was meant to be a festive moment to invite many actors, to present the results of the study to the greatest number of people and to collect feedback from the target population but required a potentially large gathering of people. For security reasons this was not possible this time, but in spite of the sanitary context many people showed interest, some of them having even participated in several phases of the project, proving the keen interest of the population to be directly involved in such a process. Furthermore, once the initial interest has been proven in the local population, we hope to be able to run more longitudinal actions coupled with several artistic or gamified field presence to accustom the population to merging societal questions with art and activities accessible to everyone. Given the success of our initiative, we would love to replicate the setup on a longer time frame with different artists and activities. We wish also to include local association more, in the building of activities as well as their facilitation.


REFERENCES Fibbi, R., & Ruedin, D. (2016). La participation des résidents étrangers aux élections municipales d’avril 2015 à Genève. Genève: Bureau de l’intégration des étrangers (Genève). Gianni, M., & Sanchez-Mazas, V. (2018). L'intégration par les pratiques citoyennes: Rapport final du projet "Participation politique non-conventionnelle des résidents étrangers". Genève: Bureau de l'Intégration des étrangers (BIE), Canton de Genève. Kurt, L. (1943). Defining the 'Field at a Given Time'. Psychological Review. 50, 292-310


Practitioners Presentation

Living labs as an ecosystem for innovation procurement - and vice versa. The FABULOS Pre-Commercial Procurement case Authors Name: Mrs. Renske Martijnse-Hartikka, MSc. Organisation: Forum Virium Helsinki, Finland

Abstract FABULOS is a public sector innovation project focused on making last-mile public transport more flexible, attractive and efficient. In particular, Pre-Commercial Procurement is used for the first time to develop and test autonomous shuttle buses in cities. Field testing of the prototypes takes place in the living labs of the so-called Buyers Group cities. In this 3-year competitive process, procurers from 6 countries work with 3 commercial consortia. The market is pushed to go beyond the state-ofthe-art, based on the real needs of cities.

Key words: Pre-Commercial Procurement; automated shuttle buses; pilots; Innovative Procurement, Public-Private Collaboration



The main problem statement

Innovation in cities is often a supply-based process: “our company has this nice invention, please (let us) try it out in your living lab”. In the case of autonomous shared mobility, so-called self-driving shuttle buses, this has led to a market where offer and demand do not match. The technology is not advanced enough for these innovative systems to become a true part of existing public transportation and a turnkey solution is missing. The EU-funded FABULOS project is an R&D project that pushes the market to go beyond the state-of-the-art, based on the real needs of cities and citizens. A Pre-Commercial Procurement (PCP) method was used, in which cities finance and facilitate large-scale pilots of innovative solutions in urban living labs, before they are commercially available.


Methods / Approach

The innovative solution that would meet the needs of the six procuring partners (four cities, a ministry and a public transport operator, from six European countries) is an “off-the-shelf” service that can operate fleets of autonomous shuttle buses for lastmile urban transport in cities. This implies also driving in, at least, 30-40 km/h zones. Fleets should be remotely operated and be easily scalable: it should function in all geographical and weather conditions. The Pre-Commercial Procurement is 3-phased and includes 1) the design, 2) development and 3) field testing of the prototype solutions. These are tested and validated in the cities’ living labs, with the potential for large scale sustainable deployment after the project. Citizens are also involved in this last phase: they can test the prototypes and express their opinions via surveys.


Results / Outcomes

FABULOS is in fact a competitive R&D process: we do not end up with only one solution, but with three different and competing solutions. We are currently in the Field Testing Phase (April - December 2020). The Saga consortium from Norway, the Sensible4-Shotl consortium from Finland and the Mobile Civitatem consortium from Estonia are all piloting their unique robot bus solutions in two different living labs across Europe. The cities of Helsinki (FI), Tallinn (EE), Gjesdal (NO), Lamia (GR) and Helmond (NL) are hosting these pilots. For cities, fleets of autonomous minibuses will lead to substantial cost savings and service level improvements and a new ability to tackle some otherwise too expensive urban transport needs. The solution should make last-mile public transport more flexible, clean and efficient for citizens. After the end of FABULOS (March 2021), the intention is to launch a Public Procurement of Innovative Solutions (PPI).



Lessons learned / Why is this presentation of interest for the

public? Pre-Commercial Procurement is a relatively unknown tool for cities to stimulate innovation. In particular, FABULOS is the first European PCP on the topic of smart urban mobility and on automated driving. Now two-thirds into our project, there are lessons related to this type of procurement - largely positive ones for both the Buyers Group as well as the participating Suppliers. The Open Market Consultation in the first months of the PCP, for example, was an excellent way to inventory the State of the Art and synchronize the needs of the various cities. Furthermore, this PCP does not only involve the contracted companies and various different city departments, but also national road authorities, public transport operators and authorities, and organisations like road safety institutes, emergency services and research institutes. By executing a PCP, not only the companies benefit from a (financial) push to innovate, but cities benefit from the creation of an ecosystem with increasingly knowledgeable stakeholders. There is also a range of interesting lessons of a more technical nature. They relate to the progress and challenges in the field of sensors, AI and autonomous mobility, but also to measures cities need to take, for example related to physical and digital infrastructure.

References Video: Website:


Research in Progress paper

A systematic literature review on living labs in the context of higher education Authors Hacer Tercanli1,2* 1 Science-to-Business Marketing Research Centre, Münster University of Applied Sciences, Johann-Krane-Weg 23, 48149 Münster, Germany 2 Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands *Corresponding author:

Abstract Higher education institutions (HEIs) are considered to play a crucial role in contributing to transformational change in society. The “grand challenges” the world has been grappled with further emphasize this role, and steer universities to engage with stakeholders to address the challenges positioned high in the political agendas (Benneworth et al., 2009). In this context, living labs are seen as a promising interface for the HEIs to jointly frame issues with societal partners, define needs and produce knowledge for a concerted action (König & Evans, 2013). Despite the increasing prevalence of the living lab initiatives among the HEIs and growing literature on experiences, there is limited research on their organisation and governance in the higher education context. This (work-in-progress) paper thus employs a systematic review of literature to capture how the living lab phenomenon is interpreted, integrated and carried out in the HEIs to address societal challenges. Preliminary findings indicate presence of a diverse range of coordinating structures, and outputs and impact on the core missions of the HEIs, as well as on the wider society. Among others, transdisciplinarity and linked methodological challenges, recruitment of citizens and stakeholder alignment emerged to be some of the most prominent challenges in the adoption of the living lab models.

Key words: Living labs, higher education institutions, organisational change, grand challenges.


Full Research paper

Urban Living Labs, Circular Economy and Nature-Based Solutions: ‘New Soil’ as common ground Authors Grazia Sveva Ascione, Federico Cuomo, Nicole Mariotti

Abstract In the attempt to foster circular practices, cities are increasingly adopting Urban Living Labs (ULLs) as tools of co-production to host alternative solutions based on reuse of products,reduction of consumption and recycling of materials. Looking up to this approach, the Municipality of Turin joined proGIreg, a European project aiming to regenerate former industrial neighborhoods through ULLs of Nature-based solutions (NBS). From aquaponics culture to green roofs, NBS rely on the use of natural sources to tackle social, economical and environmental challenges in an efficient and sustainable way. Among the seven NBS experimented in Turin, the most promising is related to the production and use of the ‘New Soil’, a blend obtained mixing earth materials coming from construction sites with compost, zeolites and mycorrhizae. Nonetheless, the unique governance configuration which enabled it as well as its actual potentialities on the market are hardly problematized, hence losing the possibility to reproduce the results in other cities. Our contribution aims to fill this gap by: (I) creating a theoretical framework where ULLs, CE and NBS merge (II) tracing back how the ULL in Turin offered the governance conditions to experiment New Soil and providing a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the New Soil. Throughout these, we offer a point of view relevant for both scholars and practitioners: a case study where an ULL experimentation leads to a new naturebased promising product, allowing at the same time an implementation of CE principles.

Key words: Circular Economy, Urban Living Lab, Nature-based solutions, New Soil, sustainable transition, Turin


1. Introduction Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are deemed to be innovative policy instruments open to integrate people as co-producers to explore, examine, experiment, test and evaluate new ideas and alternative solutions in real time (JPI Urban Europe 2015). Inside these proactive contexts, urban actors are finding ideal conditions to develop new ways of reuse, reduce and recycle by embracing the Circular Economy (CE) paradigm (von Wirth et al. 2018). In the meanwhile, cities are looking at NBS as initiatives to preserve sustainability, recover and restore natural or modified ecosystems, which address societal challenges, thus generating human well-being and biodiversity benefits (Cohen-Schan et al. 2016). In ULLs, Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) can find ad-hoc opportunities to pursue different objectives such as the recovery of spaces, the renewal of local economies and the regeneration of depressed areas (Mussinelli et al. 2018). The increasing prominence of these three research topics -ULLs, CE and NBS - in the last 5 years is demonstrated by the rising trend they follow in Scopus, in terms of number of journal articles. The query for “Circular Economy” in Scopus database, considering articles’ title, abstract and keywords, leads to 420 documents in 2017 and 2’110 in 2019, with an increase of 420%. At the same time, the upsurge for “Nature-Based Solution” is striking: 2’842 articles in 2017 and 10’856 in 2019; the “urban living lab” idea saw a smaller but still relevant increase, with 35 documents in 2017 and 50 in 2019. However, when looking in the same database for the number of publications including the three concepts only one publication matches the selected criteria1. This underlines the existence of a research gap about the convergence of these three concepts, from a theoretical point of view whose study could help practitioners to find effective solutions for real life applications. Aiming to implement and create synergies among CE, ULLs and NBS, the “New Soil” experience took place in the bigger framework of proGIreg. The European project proGIreg (productive Green Infrastructure for post-industrial Urban Regeneration)2 allowed creating ULLs of NBS in former industrial neighborhoods of four frontrunner cities: Turin (Italy); Dortmund (Germany); Zagreb (Croatia) and Ningbo (China). According to the European Commission (EC), urban labs should create a double benefit at a city scale (EC 2006). First, tested NBS should guarantee a real environmental benefit, converting abandoned spaces and putting resources back into the production cycle. Second, the labs are expected to create the suitable conditions


The paper which matches the research criteria is “Edible city solutions-one step further to foster social resilience through enhanced socio-cultural ecosystem services in cities” by Samuel et al. (2019). 2 ProGIreg is funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 program in a time span of five years, from 2018 to 2023. It focuses on productive green infrastructure, co-creation for urban regeneration and on generating self sustaining business models.


to improve business models aimed at generating new employment opportunities and withstanding the market in the next future (Ballon and Schuurman 2015). In Turin, the proGIreg ULL has been taking place in Mirafiori Sud district, through the experimentation of seven NBS3. The location choice is due to the problems the area had to redevelop after the severe crisis of the automotive company FIAT in the Eighties. Among the NBS, the New regenerated Soil (hereafter called “New Soil”) was proposed by the Municipality to fulfill the increasing demand for soil to realize new public green areas. New Soil can be described as a blend obtained mixing earth materials coming from construction sites with compost, zeolites and mycorrhizae (artificial ground or technogenic soil). As in many other cities, the massive import of high quality soil from the countryside is jeopardizing agriculture and biodiversity of the surrounding areas and it is forcing the Municipality to look for alternative soils (FAO 2015). The peculiarity of New Soil lies in the fact that it is generated in compliance with CE’s principles: Reuse soil which has already been used in construction sites, Reduce thus the use of virgin soil, Recycle the parts of soil discarded in other processes adding new elements to it. Despite the increasing attention on restored soils, governance conditions which might enable their test, as well as potentialities and weaknesses on the market, have not been sufficiently explored (Veeckman et al. 2013). The aim of this research is to explore the synergies among ULLs, CE and NBS through the case study of New Soil in Turin. Specifically, our contribution is focused on: (I) building a theoretical framework in which the three concepts merge; (II) identifying the configuration of stakeholders and the governance conditions inside the ULL that enabled this convergence, thus the success of the New Soil; (III) pointing out potentialities and weaknesses of the New Soil into the land market by providing a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis. To this end, the paper is divided into four main sections. In Section 2, we introduce the theoretical concepts which we try to merge and to compare: Urban Living Labs, Nature-Based Solutions and Circular Economy. Section 3 focuses on clarifying and justifying the methodology adopted. Section 4 provides the stakeholder analysis and the SWOT of the New Soil. Eventually, Section 5 offers final remarks on testing restored soils in ULLs.

2. ULLs, CE and NBS, a common theoretical ground for New Soil Nowadays, urban studies are still struggling to fix conceptual borders of Living Labs (LL), due to their practical adaptability in different fields of policy (Nesti 2017). Even if scholars argue the impossibility to come up with a univocal definition (Ståhlbröst 2008), there is agreement over the idea that cooperative partnership among public 3

The city of Turin hosts: New regenerated Soil (NBS 2); Community-based urban farms and gardens (NBS 3); Aquaponics (NBS 4); Green wall and roofs (NBS 5); Accessible greenway and cycling corridors (NBS 6); Local environmental compensation of big events processes (NBS 7); Pollinator biodiversity (NBS 8)


administrations, companies and citizens could be deemed as a milestone for LLs (EC 2015). In the field of open innovation, LLs have proven to be creative and effective tools of co-production, based on facilitating knowledge flows among academia, industries, policy systems and end-users (Etzkowitz 2008). LLs allow both mainstream and unexpected actors to acquire information and develop shared ideas in real-life and real-time contexts (Leminen et al. 2017). At a city scale, ULLs are increasingly bringing the principles of LL into former-industrial neighborhoods and polluted areas to generate social and sustainable transformations (Nevens et al. 2013). In the urban living lab, the city is conceived as a living laboratory where citizens and other stakeholders are engaged in the process of designing, developing, implementing, testing, and evaluating an innovation (Chronèer et al 2019). ULLs have proven to overcome limits to co-production, thus they are considered as promising tools to tackle environmental challenges through sustainable and circular solutions (Schuurman et al. 2016). Circular Economy has been proved to be an innovative yet multidisciplinary paradigm, whose related risk is the difficulty of implementation (Kirchherr et al. 2017; PrietroSandoval et al. 2018). The importance of CE is acknowledged by private and public actors, believing the transition from the “take-make-dispose” linear principle to “reuse-reduce-recycle” motto is necessary to tackle with contemporary and future challenges in terms of resources shrinkage, diversity loss, pollution and so on4 (Girard and Nocca 2019). A possible but still not much experimented way to implement CE principles in the society is through ULLs focused on circular experimentations (Cuomo et al. 2019). The bridge between these two concepts stems from the idea that the circular paradigm needs to be implemented along with the involvement of the citizens as end-users of all services (Yang et al. 2014), thus ULLs might be the appropriate venue for the shift to take place. The common goal is to push individuals, associations and companies to look for solutions to go as close as possible to closing the loops in terms of resources and energy (Savini 2016). Similarly, NBS are defined as ‘any transition to a use of ecosystem services with decreased input of non-renewable natural capital and increased investment in renewable natural processes’ (Maes and Jacobs 2015 p.123). Nowadays, the practice of including NBS has become quite common, producing a plethora of applications (Kabisch et al. 2016, Collier et al. 2017). Encouraged by the European Union, 5 NBS have several fields of application, ranging from agriculture to urban management. NBS might help in the process of transition towards a sustainable development in the urban context, thus they could act as enablers in the sustainable transition of cities 4

For instance, at the end of 2015, the European Commission designed a Circular Economy Action Plan, investing 10 billion of euros in the project (European Commission ,2019) 5 The Horizon 2020 program foresees large-scale pilots and demonstration projects of tangible Nature-based solutions, which should maintain or increase production of well-being and welfare at lower costs, and offer potential for job-rich innovation (e.g. BenDor et al. 2015).


through ULLs. In that sense, the NBS concept might be considered as a crossroad between ULLs and Circular Economy, because NBS bring up the ecosystemic approach to solve complex issues in urban environments (Eggermont et al. 2015). Thus, ULLs, NBS and Circular Economy might be complementary to promote policies and actions to regenerate and redesign the urban environment. In the context of the proGIreg, the New Soil is a clear output of these three concepts overlapping to promote the redevelopment of Mirafiori, an ex-industrial area which needs requalification and redevelopment. The achievement of these targets requires collaboration and exchanges of knowledge coming from different fields and stakeholders, such as citizens, practitioners and academics (Frantzeskaki et al. 2019). Thus, the authors propose a representation of the interaction among disciplines and stakeholders in Fig.1.

. Fig.1: Graphic representation of theoretical concepts and actors’ participation for New Soil (Source: authors’ own elaboration). l

Figure 1 represents the interaction between ULL, CE and NBS and academics, practitioners and citizens. It is composed of two triangles: the left triangle represents the theoretical concepts and the right one the stakeholders involved. The knowledge generating process takes place through co-design and it outputs a business model that aims for long term sustainability of the project itself. The business model generated is relevant for both scholars and practitioners. On the one hand, business models are deemed to be fundamental for the success of ULLs, because they help to address the common challenge of financial constraints. On the other hand, literature about business models in ULLs with NBS is scarce (Frantzeskaki et al. ibid.). In that sense, the research idea of this paper provides a double benefit: first, it aims to fill the research gap related to business models in ULLs; second, applying CE principles in a business model might reduce costs, hence improving the economical sustainability of the whole ULL by retrieving returned and recycled material (Park et al. 2010). However, stemming from the double triangle model, there are many challenges for it to work. The first is to create an effective partnership among the actors involved.


Hence, in this research, a targeted effort is made to identify these partnerships and their governance solutions, focusing on the interactions between actors with different interests. In addition, considering this research involves a business model, its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats need to be taken into careful consideration; these issues are addressed in Section 4.3.

3. Methods The fundamental assumption behind case research is the multifaceted perspective it can offer of a situation in its context (Haukipuro and Väinämö 2019). Our methodology is based on the urge to move from the abstract notion of ‘ULL, NBS and CE’ to a focus on how these key-concepts can find a practical output in urban policies. The case of New Soil has been selected as it has represented the first practical experimentation in the city of Turin able to properly integrate the three concepts. To dig into case studies such as experimentations of NBS, the literature on ULLs has mainly suggested to adopt blended methodologies based on both content analysis and qualitative data collection stemming from fieldwork (Bergvall-Kareborn et al. 2015). As argued by Hashim (2017), blended methodologies in urban studies offer the flexibility to adapt the method that best suits the research object, and provide the advantages of a predefined structure without excessive rigidity. Given the nature of our study, the contribution has been built on three main methods. First, an extended content analysis of the literature and material focused on ULLs, NBS Circular Economy and proGIreg project has been realized. This phase has attempted to investigate scientific studies that have bridged the three concepts. Meanwhile, to build the framework, we have analyzed 24 official documents (proposals, reports and deliverables) provided by the City of Turin. Second, an in-depth participatory observation of 15 meetings organized by the Municipality of Turin and proGIreg stakeholders has allowed us to examine the governance dynamics beyond the case study, from a privileged viewpoint. Third, a primary data collection from 12 semistructured interviews has enabled us to better understand the characteristics and potential of the experiment. Interviews have been realized between June 2019 and March 2020 and have involved five civil servants, two representatives of the company which has been working to create the soil and six experts who have dealt with technical aspects of the product. This methodological framework has clarified the unique governance configuration shaped by the ULL and has allowed us to design a visual map of the stakeholders. Similarly, the SWOT analysis has been built on the exploration of primary data and the collaboration offered by municipal offices who have checked the reliability of our assumptions.

4. Results and Discussion


4.1 ProGIreg ULL in Turin: the peculiarities of New Soil In the framework of proGIreg, Turin has decided to implement its ULL in Mirafiori Sud district. This former industrial neighborhood, placed along the southern border of the city, covers an area of 40,000 m² and it has always been characterized by a strong sense of community. Starting from the ‘80s, it has been passing through a deep economic downturn of its main companies. Specifically, the crisis of FIAT, the automotive manufacturer, has left huge dismissed industrial sites and negative impacts on the local community in terms of social conditions and employment opportunities (Bonomi 2019). Nowadays, due to the lack of innovative spots, new generations of dwellers are usually led to leave Mirafiori, in an attempt to find job opportunities in more attractive urban areas (De Filippi and Vassallo 2016; ISTAT 2018). Since the decline in manufacturing has been jeopardizing Mirafiori Sud, the Municipality is looking for urban transformations towards sustainability and Circular Economy (Governa et al. 2009). Circularity - in particular - is seen by the local government as a valuable urban development model based on generating instead of exploiting resources (Savini 2019). In this effort, the Municipality looks at Mirafiori Sud as the most suitable area to join proGIreg and to design an ULL focused on NBS (Fig.2).

Fig.2 The proGIreg Living Lab in Turin (Source: RWTH Aachen University, Institute of Landscape Architecture). This image shows the proGIreg NBS collocation in Mirafiori Sud.


The idea to carry out the experimentation on soil (NBS2) arose from the interest of the Municipality to solve a significant environmental problem: the growing necessity to recover high quality land from the surrounding countryside to build or restore urban green areas. Even if this action has always been unsustainable in terms of environmental and economic costs, the Municipality could not rely on alternative sources of soil inside the urban borders. Meantime, the presence of a huge amount of inert soil coming from excavations has been considered by the public actors as a potential resource to fill this structural lack. However, according to the Italian regulation on earth materials (Arpa Piemonte 2019), at a city scale the construction and restoration of green areas requires the use of high quality soil with a low level of heavy metals. For a long time, this constraint has been hampering companies from being able to easily convert their waste to fulfill the demand of soil inside the urban borders. In Turin, this gridlock has been addressed through the ULL in Mirafiori Sud, which has allowed an unconventional configuration of stakeholders to come up with the test of the New Soil. In the framework of proGIreg, along the Sangone River, the New Soil has been experimented on 2000 m2 area, to turn a high-polluted area into a public green area to be exploited by citizens (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000). For the first time, a blended soil obtained by mixing earth materials coming from construction sites with compost, zeolites and mycorrhizae, fulfills all of the chemical constraints required to build new urban green areas (Fig. 3). Moreover, it fits the definition of NBS by Jacobs (p. 135, ibid.) considering New Soil entails decreasing input of non-renewable natural capital, the virgin soil as well as it is consistent with the CE paradigm of reusing (soil already used in construction sites), reducing (the exploitation of virgin soil) and recycling (processing soil from excavation sites adding elements to create soil which can be redeployed).




Fig.3 (a) Cumulus of new soil ready for landfilling (December 2019); (b) the new green area (May 2020)

4.2 Stakeholder analysis In the framework of the ULL in Mirafiori Sud, an unexpected configuration of stakeholders untangled the knot of finding alternative and circular solutions for the requalification of green areas, creating innovation and benefiting the local residents. Looking at Clarkson’s categories (1995), stakeholders are divided into primary and secondary according to their interest and degree of influence. Primary stakeholders are crucial for the success of a project and have a great influence. Secondary stakeholders are those who are affected by the project and its outcomes but are not fundamental for its success. In Turin, the ULL helix is composed by three primary stakeholders: (I) the Municipality which has proposed the experimentation and has dealt with bureaucratic requirements; (II) the University of Turin, both committed in the quality control of the soil (III) the three companies which cooperated to create the circular proposal. Specifically, DUAL is the firm providing the inert soil which has dealt with the recovery of soil material coming from its construction sites. ACEA is a company committed to the energy production and waste processing; the mix of its compost with the earth materials upgrades the quality of the latter one with a fertility potential. Moreover, the company is in need of finding new channels of distributions for its product. Finally, CCS Aosta is a company which provides the mycorrhizae, a symbiotic association between a fungus and a plant (Kirk et al. 2001), capable of increasing the nutrients absorption and the plant resistance. Hence, CCS came up with a specific mixture to foster the growth of mycorrhizae on the plant roots into the experimented New Soil.


The local government holds both a social and an environmental interest in experimenting New Soil. The goal of the Municipality is to improve the livability of Sangone Park and to benefit the inhabitants of the neighborhood, offering citizens the opportunity to take advantage of an urban green area that is currently underused. For this reason, in the co-design phase of proGIreg ULL, citizens and local associations were engaged and placed at the centre of the project through public meetings to identify the Mirafiori area which would be the most appropriate to a regenerative intervention. In addition, New Soil is deemed to be potentially helpful for the building and soil sector, with an indirect benefit in terms of employment. Indeed, the three companies involved in the project share an economic interest in developing this circular solution. First of all, DUAL is already producing a technogenic soil similar to New Soil, but for this material there is lack of recognition, in both the market and the tender dossier due to the regulatory barriers on earth materials reuse (Nohra et al. 2020). In the ULL, the collaboration with the university experts has helped DUAL to create a better quality product capable of complying with regulation. The economic advantage of DUAL is much more than profit as it entails a greater visibility interest and an improvement of the quality of a product they already started to produce. Considering New Soil as an innovative product, DUAL could enjoy, as a firstmover, sustainable price and market share advantages (Makadok 1988). Another similar advantage for DUAL lies in the fact that buyers usually show a tendency to stick to the first brand which offers a product when only imperfect information on product quality is available (Schmalensee 1982). Second, ACEA has a significant interest in finding out new market alternatives for its compost solutions, expanding its business and fulfilling the sustainable innovation requirement in its mission. Third, CCS caught the opportunity to engage in new partnerships to increase the quality of innovative and circular soils. The University of Turin considers the New Soil as a promising opportunity to develop innovative fieldwork as well as to generate and diffuse knowledge consistent with the NBS experimentation. In that sense, the University creates knowledge spillovers which enhance the innovation ecosystems together with the public actor, the residents and the company involved. On the other hand, secondary stakeholders are actors indirectly involved in the ULL implementation, including all those actors who are in charge of giving advice and controlling that the best practices are adopted and thus hold a knowledge-generation and planning interest and the residents. These play an effective role in the codevelopment of New Soil with citizens at local scale: -

ARPA-Piemonte is a regional agency in charge of preventing damages and protecting the environment, sharing the task with the Municipality of Turin. In proGIreg, it has had the opportunity to innovate its own regulation about the reuse of soil in urban green areas.





The Metropolitan City of Turin is a local authority which has been supporting the Municipality in overcoming administrative barriers and advising about the commercialization of New Soil. As a public actor, it held a significant interest in terms of social impact and environmental regeneration. Envipark is a company specialized in business consulting and networking in the field of innovative technologies. As part of proGIreg, it is committed to identifying and overcoming the technical barriers which will arise during the testing of all the NBS in the project and it has also the role of coordinator of the New Soil activity at local level. Envipark is committed to supporting the creation of new skills generated through the New Soil experimentation with training events and the creation of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) training modules. Residents who benefit from the results of the experimentation, having a more livable space in the area of Sangone Park and they could act in mutual symbiosis with the proGIreg partners, offering support in the management of the new infrastructures and benefit from the sharing of green areas and vegetable gardens. The role of the citizens, together with local associations, in the co-design process is to help in the selection of the area where to experiment New Soil.

The diagram below (Fig. 4) shows the three areas of interest - economic, social and environmental and innovation- which gather primary and secondary stakeholders involved in NBS 2 of proGIreg6.

Fig.4 Stakeholder divided by area of interest (Source: authors’ own elaboration). The stakeholder graph represents three different areas according to the kind of stakeholder: in the red circle there are the actors with an economic interest, in blue there are public actors along with the civil society who hold a social and environmental interest and in the orange one there are institutions generating knowledge and innovation for the project.


This analysis is tailored made for the NBS 2, considering the proGIreg team for the city of Turin already carried out a stakeholder analysis for the whole project (Leopa, Elisei et al. 2019).


Hence, our findings can be related to the argument by Nesti (2013), which assumes that ULL might be drivers of innovation in the public sector by forcing governments to overcome bureaucratic barriers and come up with sustainable solutions. This is the case of proGIreg in Turin, where the heterogeneous composition of primary and secondary stakeholders have been led by common areas of interest to test the New Soil, which overcame the divergence among single participants’ interests. 4.3 New Soil: a promising business model towards circular transformation? As stressed by Chronéer (et al. 2019), creating business models as well as strategies for economic sustainability of ULLs’ experimentations play a key-role to achieve longterm results. In that sense, without a business model, it would be hardly possible to foster the adoption of New Soil in the future. The ULL of proGIreg has offered the chance to integrate a business model in the experimentation. According to the interviewees, it might become a disruptive business model for the Municipality of Turin, considering the degree of novelty of the product itself as well as the uniqueness of the governance configuration that cooperated to generate it. It might be able to reconcile economic sustainability with a social and environmental advantage, hence creating a point of convergence for stakeholders’ diverse interests. A comprehensive picture of the economic opportunities and threats of the New Soil business model is represented below through a SWOT analysis (Fig.5).

Fig.5: SWOT analysis of the New Soil Business Model (Source: authors’ own elaboration). The SWOT represents the economic strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of New Soil business model


The main strength of the business model of the New Soil is the price advantage. Considering the New Soil aims to be used in situations where agricultural land would be used otherwise, a great incentive to choose the New Soil over its alternative is the attractiveness of its price. This would mean public savings for the Municipality. Moreover, in the future, the market will require cheaper alternatives than the agricultural soil, which will become more necessarily expensive considering its quantity will be decreasing. This advantage is directly linked to the “circular� characteristic of New Soil, which allows to reduce costs using recycled material in place of virgin soil. On the other hand, this strength is directly linked to the uncertainty in the transportation cost. Transportation costs make up a big part in the final cost of the New Soil, because of the different spots where it would need to be used. The other weakness of this business model consists of the administrative and legal barriers, which could hold companies back in case of such a great effort without a perspective of a consistent economic return. The opportunities related to the New Soil business model seem appealing: first of all, the New Soil could be perceived as an innovative product due to its tunability and versatility. This means that the composition of New Soil is supposed to fit to buyer’s necessities. Nonetheless, this degree of flexibility is not possible nowadays with the agricultural land. In a future perspective, the formula of the New Soil could be patented, creating then a more valuable product. In addition, the situation could favor the emergence of new public-private partnership at a city scale based on the configuration tested in the proGIreg ULL. The downside of the great flexibility of the New Soil constitutes a threat, because it influences a lot the variability in the price7. Even if the price was fixed, the market could not be ready for this product due to the possible lack of trust from buyers. However, this threat could be overcome through information campaigns and further investigating the possibility of getting certifications. Another relevant threat could be the variable composition of the building earth material which requires specific chemical analyses each time to create a consistent New Soil formula. Hence, it would be also difficult to export the New Soil idea abroad, because any situation would need a different kind of regenerated soil to be implemented. To sum up, the goal of creating a self-sustained business for New Soil in proGIreg is fundamental for its success in the long term and it requires emphasizing on possible bottlenecks, carefully considering at the same time the role and interests of diverse stakeholders in the process and the peculiarity of New Soil itself.


A possible solution to price variability is creating at least two different kinds of New Soil based on different particle size, one more customizable than the other and then more expensive.


5. Conclusion

The presented analysis adopted an integrated approach to present the New Soil initiative as a product of the convergence of three concepts: Urban Living Lab, Circular Economy and Nature-Based Solutions. This regenerated soil was promoted by the Municipality of Turin in the framework of the European project proGIreg, with the purpose of understanding the difficulties and opportunities in testing it, to plan future urban environmental policies. Our contribution is twofold, providing clues for deeper research on the overlapping of ULLs, CE and NBS. First, it has provided a theoretical model about the convergence of ULLs, CE and NBS,in the attempt to cover a research gap. Moreover, from a practical point of view, it has offered an interesting implementation of the circular economy idea, whose lack usually contributes to creating confusion around the idea of CE. Second, it has retraced how the ULL has created a unique configuration of stakeholders which has untangled a complex situation to come up with a promising experimentation and an innovative business model. This configuration led by the Municipality succeeds to reconcile diverse interests (economic, social and environmental, represented by the stakeholders involved), turning building waste into high quality soil which could potentially solve the issue of soil scarcity, the lack of resource recovery in the building sector and the need of citizenship for more sustainable green areas in post-industrial neighbourhoods. New Soil might represent an innovation in terms of business model for both the Municipality of Turin and the market of backfilling soil. The Municipality could obtain an economic gain through the generation of a business model and then exploit it for future projects in place of more expensive and scarce agricultural soil. This would generate not only an economic return for the Municipality but it could contribute to achieving the ambitious goal of limiting the depletion of scarce resources, such as agricultural soil. In addition, if New Soil would be produced in the places where it would be needed, pollution would be reduced as well. Moreover, the conversion of OFMSW (Organic Fraction of Municipal Solid Waste) in certified compost to be applied as fertilizer in the New Soil application contributes to reducing the GHG (Greenhouse Gas) thanks to the reduction of emissions linked to the waste management and the replacement of fossil-based chemical fertilizers with compost deriving from renewable sources. At the same time proGIreg, allowing the experimentation of the New Soil in Mirafiori Sud, could produce sound knowledge about cumbersome administrative constraints. Eventually, our contribution could represent a starting point to deeper research on how to guarantee long-term sustainability as well as environmental and social impact through ULL experimentations, implementing, at the same time, the principles of circularity at urban scale.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors led the study on behalf of the proGIreg consortium ( funded by the Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission (grant agreement 776528). The City of Turin assisted with data collection. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program under Grant Agreement no. 776528 The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

References Ballon, P. & Schuurman, D., (2015). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases, Info, 17(4). doi: 10.1108/info-04-2015-0024 Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Eriksson, C. & Stahlbrost, (2015). Places and spaces within Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(12), 37-47. doi:10.22215/timreview/951 Bonomi, A. (2019, November 19). Viaggio a Detroit per capire Torino (e un po' di Taranto). Il Sole 24 Ore. Retrieved from Brugha R. & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and planning, 15(3), 239-246. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239 Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Luigi Einaudi. (2018). Diciannovesimo Rapporto “Giorgio Rota” su Torino. Servizi: uscire dal labirinto, (Services: getting out of the maze). Retrieved from Cohen-Shacham, E.; Walters, G.; Maginnis S. & Janzen C. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (2016). Nature-based solutions to address global societal challenges. doi:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2016.13.en Chronéer, D.; Ståhlbröst, A. & Habibipour, A. (2019). Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(3), 50-62. doi:10.22215/timreview/1224 Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of management review, 20(1), 92-117.


Collier, M. J., Connop, S., Foley, K., Nedović-Budić, Z., Newport, D., Corcoran, A., Crowe, P., Dunne, L., de Moel, H., Kampelmann, S., McQuaid, S., Schwarz von Raumer, H.-G., Slaev, A., Stumpp, E.-M., Van den Abeele, P., & Vandergert, P. (2016). Urban transformation with TURAS open innovations; opportunities for transitioning through transdisciplinarity. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 57–62. Cuomo, F.; Lambiase, N. & Castagna, A. (2019). Living Labs and Circular Economy. The case of Turin. Proceedings of the OpenLivingLab Days Conference, 83-98 De Filippi, F. & Vassallo I. (2016). Mirafiori Sud: la città fordista oltre la Fabbrica (Mirafiori Sud: the fordist city behind the Company), Ri-vista, 22, 915-929. doi: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1595408 Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: Industry, university, and government in innovation. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337. Eggermont, H., Balian, E., Azevedo, J.M.N., Beumer, V., Brodin, T., Claudet, J., Fady, B., Grube, M., Keune, H., Lamarque, P., Reuter, K., Smith, M., van Ham, C., Weisser, W.W., Le Roux, X., (2015). Nature-based Solutions: New Influence for Environmental Management and Research in Europe. GAIA - Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 24, 243–248. doi:10.14512/gaia.24.4.9 Fusco Girard, L., & Nocca, F. (2019). Moving Towards the Circular Economy/City Model: Which Tools for Operationalizing This Model?. Sustainability, 11(22), 6253. Governa, F., Rossignolo, C., & Saccomani, S. (2009). Turin: Urban regeneration in a postindustrial city. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 3(1), 20-30. Hashim, M. (2018). Review of Blended Methodologies Implementation in Information Systems Development, Journal of Information Systems Research and Innovation, 11(1), 7-15. Haukipuro, L; Väinämö, S; (2019). Digital User Involvement in a Multi-Context Living Lab Environment. Technology Innovation Managment Review, 9(10), 27-37. doi: 10.22215/timreview/1273 Hazelton, P. & Murphy, B. (2016). Interpreting Soil Test Results: What do all the Numbers Mean? 3rd edition, CSIRO. Howlett, M.; McConnel A.; Perl A. (2014) Streams and stages: Reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory, European Journal of Political Research, 54, 419-434. doi: 10.1111/14756765.12064 Jacob, K.; King, P.; Mangalagiu. D.; (2019), Approach to assessment of policy effectiveness. In UN Environment (Ed.), Global Environment Outlook – GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People (pp. 272-281). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108627146.016


Kabisch, N., N. Frantzeskaki, S. Pauleit, S. Naumann, M. Davis, M. Artmann, D. Haase, S. Knapp, H. Korn, J. Stadler, K. Zaunberger, and A. Bonn. (2016). Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecology and Society 21(2):39. ES-08373-210239 Kirchherr, J., Reike, D., & Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, conservation and recycling, 127, 221-232. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 Kirk, P. M.; Cannon, P. F.; David, J. C. & Stalpers, J. (2001), Ainsworth and Bisby's Dictionary of the Fungi. Wallingford, UK: CABI Leminen, S., Rajahonka, M., & Westerlund, M. (2017). Towards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities. Technology Innovation Management Review. 7(11), 21-35 Leopa, S.; Elisei, P. et al. (2019, February). Spatial Analysis in Front-Runner and Follower Cities, Deliverable No. 2.2, proGIreg. Horizon 2020 Grant Agreement No. 776528, European Commission. Maes, J., & Jacobs, S. (2017). Nature‐based solutions for Europe's sustainable development. Conservation Letters, 10(1), 121-124. Makadok, R. (1998). Can first-mover and early-mover advantages be sustained in an industry with low barriers to entry/imitation? Strategic Management Journal, 19(7), 683-696. Mussinelli, E., Tartaglia, A., Bisogni, L. & Malcevschi, S. (2018). Il ruolo delle Nature-based Solutions nel progetto architettonico e urbano, Techne, 15. doi: 10.13128/Techne-22112 Nesti, G. (2017). Co-production for innovation: The urban living lab experience. Policy and Society, 37(1). Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban Transition Labs: cocreating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111122. Nohra C. G.; Pereno, A. & Barbiero S. Systemic Design for Policy-Making: Towards the Next Circular Regions, Sustainability, 12(11). Park, J., Sarkis, J., & Wu, Z. (2010). Creating integrated business and environmental value within the context of China’s circular economy and ecological modernization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(15), 1494–1501. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.001 Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C., & Ormazabal, M. (2018). Towards a consensus on the Circular Economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 605-615. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.224


Shunfeng, G.; Haigang, X., Mengmeng, J. & Yuanmao J. (2013). Characteristics of Soil Organic Carbon, Total Nitrogen, and C/N Ratio in Chinese Apple Orchards, Open Journal of Soil Science, 3(5), 213-217. Schmalensee, R. (1982). Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. American Economic Review, 72, 349–365. Schuurman, D.; De Marez L. & Ballon P. (2016). The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1), 7-16. doi: 10.22215/timreview/956 Savini, F., Boterman, W., Van Gent, W., & Majoor, S. (2016). Amsterdam in the 21st century: Geography, housing, spatial development and politics. Cities, 52, 103–113. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.017 Savini, F. (2019) The economy that runs on waste: accumulation in the circular city. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(6), 675-691 Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming future IT: the living lab way of user involvement (Doctoral thesis, Luleå tekniska universitet). Veeckman, C.; Schuurman, D.; Leminen, S.; Lievens, B. & Westerlund, M., (2013). Characteristics and Their Outcomes in Living Labs: A Flemish-Finnish Case Study. ISPIM Conference – Innovating in Global Markets. Von Wirth T., Fuenfschilling L., Frantzeskaki N., Coenen L., (2018), Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation, European Planning Studies, 27(2), 229-257, doi: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1504895

Wolfram, M. (2018). Cities shaping grassroots niches for sustainability transitions: Conceptual reflections and an exploratory case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 173, 11–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.044

Young, I.M & Crawford, J.W (2004). Interactions and self-organization in the soil-microbe complex, Science, 304, 1634-1637. doi: 10.1126/science.1097394

ONLINE REFERENCES Piemonte (2019). Terre e rocce. Retrieved Arpa



Città di Torino: Struttura della popolazione per sesso ed età 2018. Retrieved from City of Turin: The Living Lab: Mirafiori Sud. Retrieved from European Commission (2006): European Network of Living Labs: Human Dimension of Technology. News Article, Retrieved from

European Commission: Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Retrieved from

FAO (2015): Il suolo è una risorsa non rinnovabile. Retrieved from Competence Center di Planet Idea (2018): Mirafiori Sud in numeri (Mirafiori Sud in figures) Retrieved from: ISTAT: Tasso di disoccupazione-livello provinciale (2018). Retrieved from USDA: Bulk density. Retrieved from Encyclopedia of Soil Science


Research in Progress paper (track: Urban & Societal Challenges)

Living labs for the urban commons: Developing collaborative governance arrangements through experimental learning environments Authors Joachim Meerkerk, Julie Ferguson, John Grin

Abstract This paper describes how an urban commons is established on the Amsterdam market square Plein ’40-’45, to explain how an experimental learning environment can be a living lab for improving collaborative governance arrangements. We detail how this improvement is facilitated by an experimental learning environment that engages stakeholders in a process where practical solutions are developed and systemic obstacles are addressed and redesigned simultaneously. Our study is guided by the research question: How can an experimental learning environment develop practical solutions as a means to address systemic obstacles and improve collaborative governance arrangements?

Key words: experimental learning, collaborative governance, urban commons


Introduction Amsterdam market square Plein ’40-’45 is a highly diverse market, located in an economically and socially disadvantaged part of the city. In an effort to strengthen the profile of the market in particular and the neighborhood at large, a group of engaged residents, civil servants, scholars and entrepreneurs has joined forces. The market square embodies a living lab recognizable under the name ‘We are Plein 40-45’ (Wij zijn Plein ’40-‘45) and as such represents a shared resource for the stakeholders. Despite good intentions, the living lab continues to encounter significant difficulties in progressing with its plans, in part due to bureaucratic regulations, as our case below illustrates. Overall, the case shows that an innovative form of shared governance is called for, whereby an experimental learning environment can help develop the context for its development. In this paper, we describe how an urban commons is established on the Amsterdam market square Plein ’40-’45, thereby explaining how an experimental learning environment can be a living lab for improving collaborative governance arrangements. We detail how this improvement is facilitated by an experimental learning environment that engages stakeholders in a process where practical solutions are developed and systemic obstacles are addressed and redesigned simultaneously.

Theoretical framework Urban commons as collaborative governance Urban commons is the collective management by a self-organising group of stakeholders of common resources in the city, such as space, infrastructure, facilities or social networks (Bollier, 2014; Kip, 2015). Typically, the city is a place of density, diversity, anonymity and interaction: large groups of people with different backgrounds, interests, visions and ambitions closely living together, without necessarily having interpersonal relationships, but intervening in each others lives through the use of common resources (Kip, 2015; Kornberger & Borch, 2015). Coordination problems thus arise around common resources, as their usage is free to all actors, but the use by one actor influences its availability or value for others (Oakerson & Clifton, 2017). The urban commons is a mechanism to overcome the coordination problems between the involved actors, next to systems of government regulation or free market (Ostrom, 1990, 2010). This mechanism brings to the surface governance challenges to deal with different goals, expectations and motivations of common resource users. Moreover, it aims to build collaborative relationships between people and organisations possibly operating in different sectors and adhering to different sets of values, norms and attitudes (Parker & Johansson, 2012).


Considering these particularities, the urban commons is positioned as a form of collaborative governance (Foster & Iaione, 2016). Collaborative governance assigns to the urban commons an ambition of creating equitable horizontal relationships between the diverse stakeholders, in pursuit of joint policy-making (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson et al., 2012). In this process, stakeholders are participants as well as co-designers and co-owners of the process (Healey, 1998). Systemic change through experimental learning environments A consequence of this particular approach is that the process and outcome of the urban commons often interfere with the functioning and position of systems of other coordination mechanisms in place, i.e. state and market. An example is that the collaboration between different stakeholders on a square leads to solutions that are sensitive and specific to the local context (Healey, 2010), but might be in conflict with regulations that follow from central policies of a municipality. The case study central to this paper aims to show how the systemic obstacles that arise in these situations can be overcome through experimental learning environments. An experimental learning environment is a working method that starts from practical challenges and addresses the systemic obstacles that rise to the surface while developing and realising practical solutions. Such obstacles include, for example, issues related to democratic legitimacy and bureaucratic procedures that become apparent when groups of citizens or entrepreneurs seek to resolve public issues in a self-organized manner. When in such situations municipal entities do not permit deviation from central policies that are mandated by the city council, this presents an obstacle toward developing and implementing novel collaborative governance arrangements. The experimental learning environment is presented as a means to explore how such obstacles can be overcome, through a process of following the development of practical solutions and simultaneously identifying and addressing occurring systemic obstacles. Systemic obstacles are assessed through an incremental and iterative process of experimentation, research and reflection. When relevant and possible, systemic re-design becomes part of the experimental learning environment. Following the example above, assessment relates to the needs and possibilities to follow central policy or whether other possibilities are available to create and democratically legitimize alternative solutions. Our study is therefore guided by the research question: How can an experimental learning environment develop practical solutions as a means to address systemic obstacles and improve collaborative governance arrangements?


Case study: Street Market Plein ’40-’45 as an experimental learning environment Case background The street market on Plein ’40-’45 serves an economically disadvantaged part of Amsterdam. The market is praised and valued for its social and economical function for surrounding neighbourhoods, but simultaneously produces enormous amounts of waste on a daily basis – mainly organic, cardboard and plastics. A group of stallholders is taking the initiative to resolve this problem, by organizing a disposal system that stimulates the reduction of waste and effectuates the remaining volumes through recycling or re-use, such as fermentation of organic waste. The stallholders are supported by a civil servant who is assigned the task of solving a number of urgent problems on the square through building collaborative coalitions. He helps the stallholders with developing practical solutions, which include formulating and implementing new rules on separation and collection of waste, creating an infrastructure to facilitate this, and organizing a logistics system for transportation, and finding partners for processing the different types of waste. The stallholders have the ambition to self-organize a new waste-disposal system, but recognize that they cannot and should not do everything themselves. Therefore, they aim to do this with partners, including institutional partners. In the practical realization of the above-mentioned solutions, systemic obstacles arise to the surface. An example is the tax levy for waste-disposal. Markets in Amsterdam are managed by a central municipal organisation: the Markets Bureau. Their procedures are determined in a policy formulated by the central department of economic affairs. This policy also describes options for waste management, including fixed levies for waste-disposal. Each stallholder pays the same levy per square meter, regardless the amount of waste produced. The stallholders want to introduce a different way of determining the levy, because about 90% of the total market waste comes from fruit and vegetable stalls. Stallholders therefore propose a differentiated levy related to the amount of waste a stallholder produces. This is widely regarded to be fairer, also by the fruit and vegetable stallholders. Moreover, it will also stimulate more critical procurement, preventing the bulk-buying of almost rotten fruits and vegetables for dump prices, as happens now. Despite these benefits, the Markets Bureau argues that they cannot endorse and implement such a change, as the form and height of the levy is determined in a city council mandated policy. The threat of a status quo is lurking, as the differentiated levy is a crucial step towards the commitment of the larger group of stallholders. An experimental learning environment in practice In our ongoing research project this systemic obstacle, the alleged impossibility to deviate from the central policy that determines the form and height of waste-disposal levies, is a key topics for an experimental learning environment. The research projected started in January 2018 and since then we have been following the


collective of stallholders in their attempts toward greater self-organization. We work according to action research methods (Meerkerk & Majoor, 2020), whereby the researcher actively participates to support transformative change by linking practical problems to their systemic origins through critical reflection (Bradbury, 2015; Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). Through research activities such as observation, analysis and interpretation, providing feedback and reflections, offering knowledge and developing new insights, the action researcher attempts to contribute to the furthering of concrete practices. The idea to self-organise a waste-disposal system was initially related to frustrations about the unused potential of the materials that were thrown away and about the poor quality of the public space due to littering and the unrestricted and excessive use of plastic bags. The initiators also saw the idea as a way to promote their market. However, the idea was boosted when the Markets Bureau introduced the collected levy for waste-disposal in March 2019, in response to individual stallholders waste dumping on the square and in household containers. The change to a collective levy encouraged the stallholders, with the supporting civil servant, to build collectivity and support among other stallholders, to concretize their ideas in a plan, and to bring together the necessary coalitions. The Markets Bureau was also approached as a partner in the initiative, as one of the key stakeholders in the market’s waste-disposal problem (and their proposed solution of the collective levy). The Bureau recognized the potential of the initiative as it faced a serious budget problem: the costs of processing the sheer amount of waste exceeded the levy income. The Markets Bureau thus has good reason to share the stallholders’ ambitions toward differentiating levy tariffs and stimulating waste reduction, but found itself bound by the policy and the mandate of the central city council. Deviating was impossible without political debate and decision-making, which was considered a complex and long-term solution. Looking forward At the time of writing, different directions and combinations are possible, toward realizing systemic change. We might collectively conclude that the form and height of the levy should be considered a given factor and start re-designing the waste-disposal system accordingly. Another possibility is that research and reflection reveals more space for deviation than was initially assumed. A third option, which we are carefully exploring, is assessment of this situation from a systemic point of view, toward creating an experiment whereby the space for self-organization is investigated in relation to the democratic mandate of a city council. In Amsterdam, democratization through self-organization is high on the municipal agenda, so this might well be a welcome contribution. Such an experiment could include reconsidering the institutionalisation of democratic legitimacy and work toward a hybrid form of representative and participative democracy. In the context of the experimental learning environment this would require the continuation of the practical development


of a waste-disposal system, plus a process of continuous assessment of the democratic quality of the process as well as the system in which it is designed. Phases of developing an experimental learning environment Our case illustrates that developing an experimental learning environment is a process that requires careful monitoring and facilitation (visualized in figure 1 below), developed through an action research approach (Meerkerk & Majoor, 2020).

Figure 1: An iterative process of developing an experimental learning environment The process starts with in-depth familiarization of the context, whereby relations are fostered with local stakeholders to better understand the context in situ. This is an ongoing process of ethnographic analysis, which benefits from close interaction with local stakeholders and concurrently develops the urban commons. In our study, we are presently in the phase of identification of the systemic obstacle(s) at hand, facilitated by sessions aimed at reflection and deliberation on the problem specifics with the involved stakeholders, and building collaborative partnerships as the basis for a series of experimental activities. Moreover, research of the exact provisions that determine the mandate of central policies is ongoing, as well as assessment of the applicability of regulations in the past, which made previous exceptions possible. Further analysis and development of this iterative process is a key component of our action research.


Contribution to theory and practice With this paper, we contribute to knowledge of living labs by developing an approach that combines practical solutions with systemic change. This is particularly important in urban contexts, because many of the challenges in this environment are complex and interwoven with systems in place. By conceptualizing these challenges as problems of urban commons, we open up a perspective to resolve such challenges through collaborative governance. We seek to demonstrate that this approach can be made practical and plausible in settings of experimental learning.

References Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. Bollier, D. (2014). Think like a commoner: A short introduction to the life of the commons. New Society Publishers. Bradbury, H. (Ed.). (2015). The Sage Handbook of Action Research. Sage. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29. Foster, S. R., & Iaione, C. (2016). The City as a Commons. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2), 281–349 Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning.






1531–1546. Healey, P. (2010). Making better places: the planning project in the twenty-first century. Palgrave Macmillan. Kip, M. (2015). Seizing the (Every) Day: Welcoming to the Urban Commons. In Dellenbaugh et al. (Eds.), Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag. Kornberger, M., & Borch, C. (2015). Urban commons: Rethinking the city. Routledge. Meerkerk, J. & Majoor, S. (2020). Doing action research in the city: Developing collaborative governance arrangements for the urban commons. In N. Verloo & L. Bertolini (Eds.) City Methods. Amsterdam University Press. Oakerson, R. J., & Clifton, J. D. W. (2017). The Neighborhood as Commons: Reframing Neighborhood Decline. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44(2), 411–450.


Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. In The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672. Parker, P. & Johansson, M. (2012). Challenges and potentials in collaborative management of urban commons. In: D. Modic, A. Kovacic, T. Besednjak Valic, U. Lamut and G. Rinzivillo (eds.), Multi-Faceted Nature of Collaboration in the Contemporary World: 92113). Vega Press Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483–496.


Full Research paper

Piloting an autonomous shuttle in the Brussels Capital Region: living lab insights and user reactions and acceptance Authors Wim Vanobberghen, imec-SMIT-VUB, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 9, 1050 Brussel Evy Rombaut, MOBI, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel Manon Feys, MOBI, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Cedric De Cauwer, MOBI, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Lieselot Vanhaverbeke, MOBI, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Federico Gobbato, LoUIsE, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place Eugène Flagey 19, 1050 Bruxelles, Geoffrey Grulois, LoUIsE, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Place Eugène Flagey 19, 1050 Bruxelles, Laura Temmerman, imec-SMIT-VUB, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 9, 1050 Brussel, Alice de Séjournet, MOBI, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel,


Abstract Pilots with autonomous shuttles are expanding in Europe and worldwide. They most of the time are either connecting the first or last mile to a public transport station or are serving different stops in a dedicated area like a university campus or a business park. Despite an emerging literature on user acceptance of autonomous shuttles, not much insights are publicly available about how end user tests have been undertaken in practice. By providing insights gathered by applying a Living Lab approach to an autonomous shuttle pilot in the Brussels Capital Region, this paper aims first to inform living lab practitioners and city authorities about eight insights learned with involving end users and stakeholders in the service design and in the testing of the autonomous shuttle. Especially a need for doing research that has an holistic view on all road users to research human interactions is necessary. Secondly the paper investigates the user acceptance of the autonomous shuttle in the Brussels Capital Region by students and other road users. In this way the paper contributes to ongoing research on general worldwide trends while highligting particular local context. Although the pilot is modest in relation to other current European projects, the paper finally argues that such pilots are especially relevant in cities such as Brussels where tests with autonomous vehicles are only emerging. Besides providing a concrete area where actors get experience with the new mobile technology, such a place is an excellent demonstration and awareness raising site that can trigger local reflections on autonomous shuttles in the future shared electric and autonomous urban mobility landscape.

Key words: autonomous shuttles, user acceptance, urban living lab, urban mobility, co-design, shared public transport




The development of autonomous vehicles has spurred a lot of research about their potential societal impacts (Milakis et al., 2017) and their potential role in cities (Duarte & Ratti, 2018; Cugurullo et al., 2020). When introduced in the area of public transport, autonomous vehicles are said to have a great potential, especially in the form of shared autonomous vehicles. Their main positive impact is believed to be in the first and last mile area’s that are currently limited to private cars and form obstacles for public transport (Ohnemus & Perl, 2016; Alessandrini, 2018). Since a few years ago trials with autonomous shared busses have been taking place in the world (see the SpaceE project progress map ; Aiensolu et al., 2018). Where the first tests were oriented towards evaluating the technology of driving autonomously, recent trials are offering bus services for the public in urban settings, ranging from last and first mile feeders to public transport stations to special services on campus, hospital sites, or business parks. In most of the cases, these bus services are temporary and although driving on streets, the bus lane is separated from the other traffic modes or dedicated to the shuttle. Deployments of autonomous shuttle busses in real mixed traffic conditions without dedicated lanes are still limited and have proven to be more challenging (Alessandrini, 2018). The majority of test trajectories are clearly meant to be first pilot demonstrations and to not last for a long period (Hagenzieker et al., 2020). Nonetheless, with the deployment of these public tests, the literature on autonomous shuttles is expanding to understanding the user experiences and acceptance (Madigan et al., 2016; Madigan et al., 2017; Eden et al., 2017; Nordhoff et al., 2018; Alessandrini, 2018; Salonen & Haavisto, 2019). Within this context, this paper has two main objectives. First it will share eight practical Living Lab experiences and learnings with an autonomous shuttle test in the Brussels Capital Region. Despite the growing publication on user acceptance, information about how these user tests were co-designed and run is not easily available, an exception being Alessandrini (2018) (Hagenzieker et al., 2018). This paper will provide practical insights for living lab practitioners working with new mobility modes but also make (transport) organisations and cities aware about important test requirements. The second objective of this paper is to investigate the user reactions and acceptance of the Brussels pilot. As it is an increasing insight that autonomous vehicle implementations in cities will be an uneven and differentiated process (Cugurullu et al., 2020), the paper will in this way contribute to further research on general worldwide trends of acceptance while highlighting particular local ones. The autonomous shuttle discussed in this paper is part of a research project set up in two phases at the Brussels Health Campus in Jette. It received funding from


Innoviris, the Brussels Regional Agency for Research and Innovation. The first phase ran from August to October 2019 and the second from January to March 2020. With the outbreak of COVID-19, trials in the second phase were put on hold. The paper discusses therefore for operational Living Lab aspects the two phases while the user reactions and acceptance focuses on results collected in the first stage. The paper is structured as follows. The second chapter will provide the initial objectives of the project as background for the next two chapters. The third chapter provides eight lessons learned from the Living Lab implementation in relation to its participative dimension of stakeholders, passengers and other road users involvement. Chapter four focuses on user reactions and acceptance towards the autonomous shuttle service during the first phase.


Objectives of the project

The Living Lab set up at the Brussels Health Campus can be considered as a temporary project driven urban living lab (Voytenko et al.,2016). In particular the urban living lab wants to address the challenge of smart mobility solutions for the Brussels Region by investigating the potential of a new technology in a particular situation at the Brussels Health Campus. The Brussels Health Campus, situated in the municipality of Jette in the North-East of Brussels, was selected as the trial site because of the mix of services being present on its territory: a hospital, a university campus, a kindergarten, a fitness centre and students houses. Although the campus is private, it’s use has, because of these functions, a public character. Each of these services have their own dynamic in terms of opening hours and traffic flows they generate as well as the kind of public they attract (students, parents, hospital and university staff, patients, visitors, locals). Moreover, the campus is situated next to an important road - de Dikke-Beuklaan where a tram and various bus lines are operating. A diverse set of testers and conditions is thus available to test an autonomous shuttle in various circumstances. The initial ambition of the project was to deploy two trajectories in real traffic conditions without dedicated or separate bus lanes but with a difference in traffic intensity. The first trajectory would connect various campus facilities (visitor parking, hospital, university aula’s and student houses) by following a calmer internal route. The second trajectory would connect a nearby transit parking with the hospital via the Dikke-Beukenlaan with its dense traffic. The shuttle used was a fully electric Easy Mile Z10. The maximum driving speed is 40 km/h with a practical operational speed of 20 km/h. The shuttle can carry 12 passengers, 6 seating and 6 standing. The shuttle has always a safety operator on board. The autonomous shuttle was leased from a Belgian start-up company that specializes in renting such vehicles as well taking care of the training of the operator.


Figure 1: First trajectory at project proposal stage: connection on campus of visitor

parking (left) with student houses (right) via a campus road behind the hospital and potential two stops at aula’s and staff entrance hospital. Figure 2: End goal of the project at project proposal stage: connection between the Hospital/VUB campus (right) and the parking next to the ring road (left) via DikkeBeuklaan.


III. Living Lab experience This section provides eight insights from implementing the Living Lab approach. The list is not exhaustive but highlights aspects that relate to the participative dimension of the Living Lab involving stakeholders, passengers and other road users. 1. Broad stakeholder involvement in the service design Involving stakeholders in the co-creation of the solution is a key characteristic of a Living Lab. This is no less the case for co - designing an autonomous shuttle bus service. We learned that it is important to hold a broad perspective on the stakeholder notion and define it as “any party that influences or is influenced by the arrival of the autonomous shuttle on the Brussels Health Campus” (cfr. Freedman & Reed, 1983). Mapping stakeholders We started therefore by mapping extensively all the relevant actors that can act as a stakeholder for the urban living lab and categorised them according to the role(s) they can play. This mapping allowed us to organise the identified actors in three categories. In the first place we considered the parties directly involved in the shaping of the project, the trajectory and the bus service as our ‘internal campus stakeholders’. To this group belonged the hospital and the university service departments. Secondly, we distinguished a group of ‘external campus stakeholders’ that are residing on the campus and which operations could impact our service and vice versa. It was the fitness centre, the high school, the kindergarten and the elementary school. They each attract cars, bikers or pedestrians that at certain hours will interfere with the shuttle on the road or whose customers can be interested to use the shuttle. The third group of actors, the ‘external stakeholders’, represented a range of other actors that were geographically not situated on the campus but shaped the broader conditions of the project and test. They are important to interact for complying to road and safety regulations, for taking up the project lessons in their own mobility plans or for supporting certain infrastructural changes. They were the regional mobility authority Brussels Mobility (for public road management and authorisation of shuttle as a transport service), the Federal Mobility Departement (for authorisation of the shuttle), the local municipality and police of Jette (for gathering local support for local adaptations to the public road) and the regional public transport provider MIVB/STIB (exchange of experiences and bus and tram stop near hospital) that was itself starting with autonomous shuttles test in Brussels.


Interaction strategy with the stakeholders Given the potential wide range of stakeholders, an exchange strategy with all these actors should be devised in order to align the definition of trajectories and services with the technical requirements and spatial implications of the shuttle and the broader needs and concerns from various actors. A four stage approach was devised that between February and June 2019 first scoped the mobility issues and trajectories, secondly analysed their feasibility from an operational point of view taking into account spatial impacts and technical constraints, then gathered user needs and expectations to define the service and finally validated the final trajectories and the service before starting the preparations of the trial in July 2019. In order to scope the mobility needs, a workshop with the internal stakeholders was organised to investigate the mobility challenges on the campus and to scope the area of two trajectories. The outcome led to the adaptation of the initial project outline. Due to construction works on campus leading to trucks and construction sites interfering with the shuttle, the first trajectory to connect on the campus various locations to move around hospital and university staff and students had to be reduced to connecting the main university entrance with the student houses. The main target audience for this 350 meter long traject would therefore be students. The second conclusion was that the initial main goal of the project to connect the hospital with a transit parking next to the Brussels’ ring road and to provide in this manner a shuttle service for the hospital staff was not feasible because of technical reasons (bad connection in the tunnel below the ring to access the transit parking) and operational difficulties with using the existing separate bus lane of the MIVB/STIB. Instead the focus shifted to testing the potential of a last mile bus service for hospital visitors (day care patients, visitors of patients) by creating a 1 kilometer long loop between the hospital main entrance, the visitor parking and the public transport hub. Given that the hospital is situated on a rather steep hill, the shuttle bus could facilitate the on-campus mobility, especially for persons that are suffering from physical impairment. The feasibility of the traject was investigated in a second stage by means of a site visit by the shuttle provider whose report listed operational barriers ranging from transforming parking places to bus stops, reducing parking places, adaptations at intersections to reducing speed limits on public roads. The main challenge was the suppression of parking places along an important part of the trajectory. Although a parking prohibition is already in place, in practice this prohibition seems to be difficult to impose due to high parking pressure on the campus. By means of meetings with external stakeholders and internal stakeholders a list of solutions for each of these barriers was proposed (see lesson number 3). In the next stage, user needs and expectations were gathered from the external stakeholders by means of 12 interviews and from student representatives by means of two workshops. The main insights was that the shuttle would attract most interest


from students during lunch time and in the afternoon after classes. The external campus stakeholders were mostly concerned that the shuttle would not hinder traffic during their peak hours of operations, being in the morning or late afternoon and evening. A request of the kindergarten was made to implement a third potential stop at the drop off parking near the parking gate that regulated the entrance to the university buildings. The shuttle could pick up these parents and their strollers who could not pass by the parking gate and thus had to make, due to an unclear pedestrian path and a hill, a difficult walk to the entrance of the kindergarten. During a final workshop in June 2019 the various insights gathered in the previous stages were put together and validated. The shuttle service would run every weekday from 23rd August till the end of October from 12h to 17h. The main passengers to recruit were students from the university and high school, although other VUB and Hospital staff were also welcome to take a ride. The actions to implement the road infrastructure adaptations and other spatial interventions were agreed upon in order to be ready for the official launch.The request of the kindergarten for an extra bus stop could however not be acknowledged since it turned out that the stop would have to be organised on the road close to an intersection which would increase the risk of collision with a car. Finally in order to keep the stakeholders engaged to the project, it was decided to send monthly updates about the status of the trials. An aspect we learned during the trial given the reactions of the press and public (see also lesson 4 and 5) as well as the reactions of students (see chapter 4) is that the trial site is also an important place for awaireness raising and demonstration site for broader actors (citizens, broader mobility actors, civil society, ...) in the city. Test trials allow to concretely experience new mobility technologies and to start a process of reflection about the future organisation of mobility in other parts of the city or to reflect on other use cases that could at a point be tested during the Living Lab. In that sense, we recommend that researchers would also look for ways to involve broader groups in the co-creation exercise and to investigate how the trials can also meet their needs and concerns and how such actors can be involved throughout the whole Living Lab trajectory.


Figure 3: Trajectory phase 1: connection between Auditoria (left) and student house with(right)

Figure 4: Trajectory phase 2: Hospital loop connecting hospital visitor entrance (middle) with visitor parking (right) and MIVB/STIB bus and tram stop (left).


2. Increase test complexity via an iterative process in and between trial stages For autonomous shuttle deployment on a public road in mixed traffic conditions, the iterative strategy inherent in the living lab approach should be conceived as a learning strategy that gradually increases the complexity of testing and allows to integrate lessons learned in the next stage. Instead of immediately running a test on a major public road with dense traffic and without a dedicated or separate lane, our experience learns us to advise to run a first iteration with a specific target end user group on a calmer road segment. The project set-up with two phases and trajectories allowed meeting this approach. In this way, the trajectory in the first stage wanted to create a good climate for the shuttle trials and had three particular objectives. First, it allowed the project team to get acquainted with the concrete potentials and limits of the shuttle. It also allowed us to check whether our road signalisation was effective and to guarantee a safe implementation for the other road users. Secondly, the user testing can provide insights into dynamics of user engagement and user experience that allows to improve the service. Finally, this first iteration allows to create awareness among the stakeholders along the trial site about the presence of the shuttle and to discover the new mobility technology. For evaluating this first iteration, critical evaluation points and KPI were listed in order to track progress and make an informed decision to move to the second iteration. Besides the denser traffic, in the second iteration the type of testers can be increased and, if available, new technological features, such as for example an app to call the shuttle at a stop, can be added to the test. Besides the iteration between stages, it is important to device iterations within a particular stage in order to adapt gradually to new situations. Before opening the service to the public, the project planned one week of ‘closed testing’ to make sure the shuttle was well calibrated, signalisation was well located and readable for other road users and bus stops are clearly identifiable. A small set of passengers was recruited to support the closed test and to provide their experiences. In the more complex setting of the second trajectory, not all targeted end users were engaged at once. The first three weeks hospital staff were testing the shuttle the service before grantin access to day care patients and family members of hospitalized persons. 3. Create a local mobility plan to chart spatial impacts on road Although the shuttle is driving on the public road among the other road users, its technological characteristics require that the public space along the trajectory needs to be rearranged, new infrastructure has to be set up or existing infrastructure has to be removed. As the shuttle could operate on a conventional road shared with other vehicles, only low-cost road adaptations were necessary for the first trajectory:





Installation of road separators along strateic parts of the trajectory to prevent cars from parking on non-authorized places or on places where the shuttle needed space to operate (particularly at the two bus stops that were former parking places). Installing a responder and receiver system to automatically open the gate to enter a small part of the trajectory that is only accessible by university staff. Placing vertical road signs along the trajectory as well as painting the project logo on the road at strategic locations in order to indicate to car drivers and other road users that an autonomous shuttle is present. Transforming parking spaces into two bus stops and marking the area in a clear colour in order to allow passengers to hop on and off the bus. In order to prevent cars from parking the colour was orange and the project logo was applied. Removing pot holes and vegetation that was too close to the shuttle and would lead it to the detect it as an object on the route forcing the shuttle to make an unneccsary stop.

It should also be investigated to what extent other lanes for pedestrians or bikes can be used to operate the shuttle. In the case of the second trajectory a square for pedestrians was used to design a bus stop in safe conditions nearby the tram and bus stop and to circumvent one intersection nearby. On the other hand, the bike lane next to the Dikke-Beuklaan could not be used because the size of the shuttle was too big and would interfere with bikers. In order to plan and manage these interventions, the project made detailed mobility plans where the exact position of the adaptations was marked as well as the shuttle’s needs to move forward and/or turn. Such plans enable a clear and efficient communication with the internal stakeholders and companies that had to implement these adaptations.

Figure 5: Traject Phase 1: Parking pressure on the campus - barrier for autonomous shuttle


Figure 6: Separators and nadars (removed after one week) to enforce parking prohibition regulation. Applying the logo of shuttle and the project to the road to warn drivers of the presence of the shuttle. Vertical sign boards were later placed on the separators as well.

Figure 7: Part of the mobility plan of phase 1 with infrastructural adaptations and shuttle movements


Figure 8: A successful spatial adaptation: no parked cars hindering the autonomous shuttle

4. Raising awareness about the trial : press event, communication and visibility The launch of previous pilots with autonomous vehicles received a lot of attention in the local popular press. The project’s press presentation during the official launch of the first trajectory generated important media coverage as well with a news item in all journals of major national television stations and extensive coverage in the national and regional Dutch and French speaking newspapers. This coverge helped to raise awareness of our project in broader mobility circles resulting in some site visits by other cities as well as requests for more information. Another side-effect was the arrival of amateur photographers to the site. Some passengers testified to us that they had heard about the trial because of the press coverage which had triggered their curiousity about the autonomous shuttle. After the press event, a continuous communication campaign was organised during the first phase in order to raise awareness among the students and staff about the shuttle bus service. Besides messages announcing the service via dedicated social media channels and electronic newsletters of the university and the hospital, printed


media were also used. Posters were displayed on strategic places on the campus and regular flyer action took place in the student restaurant situated next to the university bus stop. Moreover, during service hours, a team member invited students to test the bus at both bus stops. While the use of these various media might support the creation of “mental visibility� of the trial, it soon became obvious that taking care of the physical visibility of the test itself is as crucial, especially as the effect of media coverage is not lasting. Although a driving shuttle creates visibility on site, the trajectory was due to its location hidden from the broader public on the campus while the location of the two bus stops itself were not very visible for students at the university or student house buildings. Finally we learned that there is also a need for a leaflet that provides short explanations about the shuttle and trial in order to answer more detailed questions of users. Although an operator or member of the project provided this during the ride, some information can not always be transmitted. In the second phase a threefold leaflet was therefore created, especially because the complexity of the traffic situation needed an attentive operator.

Figure 9: Press conference at stop Aula with student restaurant in the back, a much frequented place on the campus. The hedge however made it not easy to see the bus.

5. Recruiting and engaging testers: turning techno-curiosity in continuous usage From the outset the project recruited a specific group of 30 students that committed to drive with the shuttle ten times during the trial period and take a survey after the first, third, nineth and final ride. In that sense, it was the ambition to compare possible changes in opinions and experiences of the service and also compare the


response with testers that only took the test once. Although only four students finally made the ten rides, 10 at least used the shuttle more than three times. Among the other passengers we noticed that only at the end of the trial period some students returned to use the shuttle again. Although passengers’ reactions explain that certain aspects of the test set-up explain the dominant one-time usage patterns (see chapter 4), the main insight remains that the challenge will be for autonomous shuttle projects to turn techno-curiosity into continuous usage. For the second phase engaging returning passengers was quite difficult since, apart from university and hospital staff, only a small segment of visitors and patients of the day-care hospital are potentially returning regularly to the campus. Communication before arriving to the campus about the service will be therefore a key element to develop.

6. Prepare for the worst: service interruptions and revolting road users Despite all precautions, the shuttle could not perform its service during a couple of days due to unforeseen technical problems. It is therefore important to devise a communication plan to inform passengers and stakeholders about service interruptions. Important is clear communication about when the service will start again and to be realistic. In this way, frustration and lose of support can be prevented. Emergency plans detailing how and by whom the shuttle can be removed quickly from the trajectory in case of a problem are also an important part of the strategy to be prepared for the worst case scenario. Another aspect to take into consideration is the way to handle road users that don’t follow the new traffic situation and regulations. In the case of the first iteration, the major adaptation was the suppression of parking spaces along one side of the road. In a context of high parking pressure this was a risk. Since the academic year started only mid September and traffic on the campus was still not dense, the impact of this decision was not felt immediately. From the end of September onwards, respecting the parking prohibition rules became very hard at the student houses bus stop at noon and late in the afternoon. Car drivers often took the initiative to move the separators away that prevented them from parking. As result the shuttle had to stop often and small traffic jams emerged. This required one team member to constantly repair the situation and negotiate with the drivers as well as, if the drivers were not found, to distribute a leaflet informing the car drivers about the parking prohibition.


Figure 10: When leaving the stop at the student houses, cars block the road for the shuttle despite parking prohibition signs and separators to discourage parking. The opening of the high school (right) increased the parking pressure from mid September onwards.

7. Evaluate all road user interactions by including behavioral observations Researching the experience of the passengers of the ride is logically the first research line. The dominant research method so far has been quantitative questionnaires that were taken immediately after the bus ride. Previous research often makes the remark that feedback from other road users and their experience with the shuttle’s presence while walking, driving or biking is as important to collect. Such research ranges from respecting new road signalisation over ways to bypass the shuttle to observing bodily behaviour (e.g. interaction by bodily signs to an operator in case of unexpected stop) and finally knowing how other road users feel about the changed traffic situation. Concrete research results about such interactions are however only emerging (Millard-Ball, 2018.; Boersma et al., 2018; Eden et al, 2017; Straub & Schaefer, 2019; Merat et al., 2018). Besides these interactions, our project learned that it is important to investigate reasons for nonuse of a shuttle service as well and to what extend this is due to factors of fear or other motivations that has nothing to do with the shuttle as such. Such an holistic view on interactions of all road users (and non-users of the shuttle bus) requires a more observational approach using ethnographic methods such as participant observation or video-recordings (Eden et al., 2017) that demand efforts and a long term perspective in order to retrieve changes in behaviour over time. Based on the project experience, we therefore recommend to integrate in the pilot set-up a holistic perspective on human-shuttle interactions but to make pragmatic choices in line with your time and resources available. In the first phase we developed at the end of the trial period a survey, distributed via the newsletter of the university and the hospital, to gather feedback from students and university/hospital staff that saw the shuttle but did not take a ride. In the second phase we planned during the month of March 2020 to focus each Tuesday on interviewing shortly


pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, to perform participants observations on the operator and to observe systematically behavioral interactions of road users with the shuttle bus. 8. Plan sufficient financial and staff resources The Living Lab trial taught us that maintaining the infrastructural implementations as well as collecting user feedback required more financial and staff resources than we had planned and budgeted. While initially one team member and one operator were foreseen to daily run and manage the trial, it became quickly obvious that more effort was needed. Besides the operator to take care of the shuttle during its service, we had to engage one person to monitor each test day the trial site in general at the beginning and end of the day and to check the infrastructural adaptations in particular during the test. Another team member was needed to support the invitation of students to try out the shuttle at both bus stops and to collect their feedback after the ride. As mentioned in the previous section, a team member was also needed at the student houses stop from end of September onwards to monitor the parking behaviour. Although each test site has its own dynamic, in case of a trial set up in mixed traffic conditions we therefore recommend to well estimate and prepare human and financial resources. In particular what concerns staff we recommend to foresee the following three profiles: a general manager of the trial site, a responsible for engaging passengers and collecting their feedback and a person to check the infrastructure permanently and to inform the public about the trials.

IV. Passengers’ reactions and user acceptance In this chapter we dive deeper into the reactions of passengers and other road users to the shuttle and present our insights on user acceptance. Between 23rd August and 31rd October, the shuttle made 784 trips. In total it picked up 560 passengers. 520 passengers were unique, while 40 rides were performed by students that were recruited to do more than one trip. We discuss first the research on the shuttle passengers and then present the reactions from other road users. 1. Shuttle passengers After their ride with the shuttle, passengers could complete immediately a survey via an iPad or, if they did not have immediately time, were given a leaflet with a link to the online survey. The questionnaire distributed to passengers was based on the UTAUT2 model (Venkatesh et al., 2012) and a review from other user acceptance research with autonomous shuttles. Its methodology is explained in Rombaut and co-authors (2020). UTAUT2 constructs that predicted most reliable autonomous shuttle acceptance in previous studies were used: hedonistic motivation (using autonomous vehicles is fun), performance expectancy (Using autonomous vehicles


will help me reach my destination in a more comfortable way) and effort expectancy (I find autonomous vehicles easy to use). Besides these constructs, questions on general experience, comfort and safety and worries with respect to autonomous shuttles were added. Finally sociodemographic questions on age, occupancy and educational level were included and the importance of the current choice of transport mode was taken into account (Rombaut et al., 2020). In total 145 respondents completed the survey. More women (57%) than men took the survey (42.76%). Given the nature of the campus, most respondents were students (73.1%) and below 25 years old (68.97%). Their main mode of transport in Brussels was public transport (58.62%), followed by car or motorcycle (31.03%), bicycle (8.28%) and on foot (4.07%). Figure 11 shows that the respondents rated the comfort, safety, ease of use to go in and out of the shuttle and general experience as good to very good. Since we at some moments had sudden safety stops, especially due to parked cars near the BOJ stop, this score, although in general positive, has some more neutral scores (rather good, nor good nor bad).

Figure 11: comfort, ease of use, safety and general experience

The high appreciation for the accompanying operator on board is shown in Figure 12. This raises the point that in the first stages of autonomous shuttle deployment the presence of an operator is still an important factor and should open the reflection about his future role. Is it really desirable to run such autonomous shared transport modes without any staff or how can the role of the now passive driver be rethinked to a steward role?


Figure 12: Appreciation for the operator on board of the autonomous shuttle What concerns the intention to use autonomous shuttles in the future, Figure 13 shows that the distribution is skewed to the right positive side. The same applies to the four UTAUT constructs in Figure 13. Moderately strong correlations were found between the intention to use and the UTAUT2 constructs hedonistic motivations (0.62), effort expectancy (0.613), performance expectancy (0.551) and general experience (0.550). This is in line with other research (Madigan et al., 2016; Madigan et al., 2017). Moreover a new feature was created - environmental conscious - in order to check wether this influences the choice of transport. This feature (-0.019) was, together with ‘worries about AV (-0.066) - not significantly influencing the intent to use. What concerns demographic variables, men seem to have a higher intention to use, which is in line with previous research (Hulse et al., 2018). Age on the other hand is positively correlated with the intention to use, which is somewhat contradictory to previous research that states that younger people are more accepting autonomous shuttles/vehicles (Hulse et al., 2018). No difference in intention to use was found based on age or education.


Figure 13: Intention to use autonomous shuttles in the future

Figure 14: Users responses on the UTAUT constructs.

In an open feedback question at the end of the survey, 21 respondents made personal observations about the test. Four respondents made positive final observations about the tests experience (nice ride, nice team, ‌). Three expressed that they see such shuttles not operating in the busy streets in the center of Brussels where it will have to stop more unexpectedly. Four uttered doubts about the efficacy of the shuttle in more busier mix traffic environments. Twelve respondents pointed to a limited use of the bus service so far compared to a greater potential at the hospital itself or with a connection of the current trajectory with the nearby MIVB/STIB bus and tram stop or train station of Jette. Three noted that the


shuttle drives very slowly making a ride less attractive as one is faster on foot if the shuttle is not immediately available at a stop. 2. Students using the shutte more than once Two focus groups with in total twelve students that took the shuttle more than once were organised at the end of October 2019l. Most of these students were staying at the student houses. The students testified that multiple usage made them reflect more on the potential of such shuttles. While the first ride was more of a ‘technical wow’ experience, some of them claimed that they even started discussing shuttles among their student house friends. What concerns the implementation of the service, they also noted that the presence of the shuttle should have been more visually explicit around the two stops. With respect to the service, they shared some observations of some survey respondents by expressing a need for a connection to the nearby bus and tram stop or station. However, it was also heard that a demand system instead of the fix schedule was for them more useful as the distance covered was not too long and hence it is, especially with good weather, not useful to wait for the bus. As with the answers in the open feedback section in the survey, these reactions of students are in line with research by Salonen et al (2019) and Nordhoff et al. (2018) that highlighted the importance of service characteristics, routes and flexibility of the shuttle as important factors for acceptance and behavioural change. 3. Other road users The questionnaire for other road users focused on the perception of car drivers, bikers or pedestrians with respect to traffic flow and the general feeling of safety. In particular they were asked if they had a direct interaction with the shuttle, if they were inconvenienced by the shuttle in any capacity and which mode of transport they were using. Moreover, they had to indicate on a Likert scale to what extent they feel safe in the traffic situation along the trajectory with a shuttle and without a shuttle. In an open question they could add specific remarks. The same sociodemographic questions as with passengers were added. In total 75 respondents were other road users, mainly having an interaction with the shuttle as a pedestrian (48%) or driver of a car (45.33%). A quarter of the respondents (25.33%) indicated that they experienced an inconvenience due to the slow speed of the shuttle. The fear was the slow shuttle would increase the traffic on an already busy road. This inconvenience was more felt by car drivers (84.21%) than pedestrians (15.78%). Despite the feeling of inconvenience, 81% of the respondents did not feel that the level of safety had changed with the shuttle on the road. The 5 respondents who testified of an increase of safety were all pedestrians. Those who felt safer in regular traffic were 4 pedestrians and 5 car drivers. If we look at gender, a higher degree of women (30%) than men (16%) felt inconvenienced by the shuttle which is in line with research that states that men have more positive opinions about autonomous vehicles in general (Hohenberger et al., 2016). Compared to published


research on other road interaction (Boersma et al., 2018; Straub & Schaefer, 2019; Merat et al, 2018; Eden et al., 2017) , there was no mention of a need to know the intention of the shuttle (turning, stopping, starting) as well as no particular concerns from cyclists. This might be to the location of the trial trajectory on a calmer part of the campus as well as the fact that signalisation of the presence of the shuttle was put along by painted signs on the road as well by posts along the trajectory.

IV. Conclusion Autonomous shuttle busses are increasingly being tested around the world and its application scenarios are becoming more oriented to addressing various urban mobility challenges. Nonetheless it seems that the research is still a niche. Research on user reactions and acceptance as well as managing test sites is scattered, not easy retrievable and sometimes not always reported by pilot projects. By providing for both issues concrete insights from the project in Brussels as well as eight lessons learned, this paper wanted to help living lab practitioners and city/transport authorities with understanding the complexity of setting up a trial and to show the benefit of taken stakeholder and user concerns upfront in the design of the trial. One important point it stresses is the need for a holistic view on all user roads in pilots as well as the need to turn techno-enthusiasm in lasting usage as well. As a reflexion on the paper we believe that one research challenge to tackle is the development of a (urban) Living Lab framework for autonomous shuttles that allow city authorities, transport providers, citizens and civil society to work collaboratively on an urban mobility challenge by means of this new mobility technology. Although our pilot has limited ambitions compared to some large scale European projects that have been launched recently (Fabulos, Avenue, Drive2thefuture, SHOW) and focus on new developments such as larger fleet deployment and ondemand modules, small scale trials such as the one reported in this paper have still an important role to play in the transition to shared, electrical and autonomous public transport. Besides being a concrete test area, these pilots are important demonstration and awareness raising sites that can stimulate the reflection on the future of mobility in a city. For the Brussels Health Campus the shuttle project is a concrete opportunity to start a reflection on the current organisation of the mobility on the campus and how future technologies can reshape it to the benefit and demands of the various users. For the Brussels region, it will provide important first lessons to replicate tests in other areas of the city and adapt its own operations to autonomous shuttles as well. As the deployments of shuttles in cities as a last mile solution will be an uneven process and bound to local contexts, as a research site the Living Lab allowed to conduct the first research on user reactions and acceptance of autonomous shuttles in Belgium. The main conclusions of the pilot first stage are that the majority of passengers stand positive towards the technology and have positive intentions to use the shuttle again in the future, that passengers and other road users felt safe


with the shuttle on the road and that men are more keen to use autonomous shuttles. The main objection seems to be the speed of the shuttle both from passengers and other road users (drivers and pedestrians) and doubts against its deployment in complex real life traffic situations (such as the centre of a city) without separated or dedicated lane. Also the usefulness of the chosen trajectory itself and the flexibility of the service are points to work on in order to increase acceptance. The results of the second stage where other profiles (hospital staff, visitors, patients, ...) than students were researched will further provide relevant insights and shed nw lights on some variables such as age or the educational level. The focus on other road users will also contribute to a better insights with respect to the role of speed, the feeling of safety, the need for communication of the shuttles’ driving intention and the non-verbal communicatoin between the operator and drivers, pedestrians and cyclists.


References Ainsalu (J.), Arffman, V. et al. 2018. State of the art of automated busses. Sustainability, 10, 3118:1-34. Alessandrini, A. (ed.) 2018. Implementing automated road transport systems in urban settings. First Edition. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Boersma, R., van Arem, B. & Rieck, F. (2018). Application of driverless electric automated shuttles for public transport in villages: the case of Appelscha. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 9: 1-17. Cugurullo, F., Ransford, A., Gueriau, M. & Dusparic, I. 2020. The transition to autonomous cars, the redesign of cities and the future of urban sustainability. Urban Geography : 1-26. Duarte, F. and Ratti, C. 2018. The impact of autonomous vehicles on cities: a review. Journal of Urban Technology, 25, 4: 3-18. Eden, G., Nanchen, B., Ramseyer, R., & EvĂŠquoz, F. 2018. On the road with an autonomous passenger shuttle: integration in public spaces. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA 17: 1-10. Freedman, R. & Reed, K. 1983. Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25, 3: 88-106. Hagenzieker, M., Boersma, R., Nunez Velasco, P., Ozturker, M., Zubin, I., & Heikoop, D. 2020. Automated busses in Europe. An inventory of pilots. Version 5.0. Delft: TU Delft. Heikoop, D., Nunez Velasco, J., Boersma, R., Bjornskau, T. & Hagenzieker, M. 2020. Automated bus systems in Europe: a systematic review of passenger experience and road user interaction. Advances in Transport Policy and Planning: 1-19. Hohenberger, C., SpĂśrrle, M. & Welpe, I. (2016). How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions accross different age groups. Transportion Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 94, C: 374-385. Hulse, L.M., Xie, H. & Galea, E.R. (2018). Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Safety Science, 102: 1-13 Madigan, R., Louw, T., Dziennus, M., Graindorge, T., Ortega, E., Graindorge, M. & Merat, N. 2016. Acceptance of automated road transport systems (ARTS): an adaptation of the UTAUT Model. Transportation Research Procedia, 14 : 2217-2226.


Madigan, R., Louw, T., Dziennus, M., Graindorge, T., Ortega, E., Graindorge, M. & Merat, N 2017. What influences the decision to use automated public transport? Using UTAUT to understand the public acceptance of automated road transport systems. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 50: 55-64. Merat, N., Louw, T., Madigan, R., Willbrink, M. & Schieben, A. 2018. What externally presented information do VRU’s require when interacting with fully automated road transport systems in shared spaces? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 118: 244-252. Milakis, D., van Arem, B., & van Wee, B. 2017. Policy and society related implications of automated driving: a review of literature and directions for future research. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 21: 324-348. Millard-Ball, A. 2018. Pedestrians, autonomous vehicles and cities. Journal of Planning, Education and Research, 38: 6-12. Nordhoff, S., de Winter, J., Madigan, R., Merat, N., van Arem, B. & Happee, R. 2018. User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-SchÜneberg: a questionnaire study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58: 843-854. Ohnemus, M. & Perl, A. 2016. Shared autonomous vehicles: catalyst of new mobility for the last mile? Built Environment, 42, 4: 589-602. Rombaut, E., Feys, M., Vanobberghen, W., De Cauwer, C.& Vanhaverbeke, L. (2020). Experience and acceptance of an autonomous shuttle in the Brussels Capital Region. IEEE Forum ISTS2020. (accepted/in press) Salonen, A. & Haavisto, N. 2019. Towards autonomous transportation. Passengers experiences, perceptions and feelings in a driverless shuttle bus in Finland. Sustainability, 11: 1-19. Straub, E. & Schaefer, K. 2019. It takes two to tango: automated vehicles and human beings do the dance of driving - four social considerations for policy. Transport Research Part A, 122: 173-183. Venkatesh, V., James, Y., Thong, L. & Xu, X. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extendin the unified theory. MIS Quarterly, 36, 1: 157-178. Voytenko, Y., McKormick, K., Evans, J. & Schwila, G. 2016. Urban living labs for sustainable and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123: 45-54.


Research-in-Progress Paper

Urban Living Labs: Problematising the lab-cityinterface Author Birk Diener, Institut de GÊographie, UniversitÊ de Neuchâtel

Abstract Urban living labs are based on a distinction between inside and outside. Outside is the unsustainable, complex and unique city. Inside is the controlled laboratory that ensures the validity of experiments and the absence of consequences. This article draws on laboratory studies to argue that the success of urban living labs depends on whether the laboratory actors manage to overcome the boundary between the inside and outside of the lab and deploys an action research approach to study how urban living lab projects undertake this mediation between city and laboratory. Through this the article aims to introduce a perspective that connects micro and macro level studies of urban living labs. This "Research-in-Progress Paper" presents the framework, theoretical backgrounds, and methods of my research on urban living labs and is written while the empirical research is in its planning phase.

Key words: urban living labs, laboratory studies, action research, urban sustainability transition


Urban Living Labs: Problematising the lab-city-interface Research on urban living labs can be divided into contributions from micro and macro perspectives. From a micro perspective scholars try to understand innovation processes taking place in (urban) living labs, asking questions about the key principles and components of living labs (Kareborn & Ståhlbröst, 2009), innovation processes in living labs (Baccarne et al., 2016), coordination and participation approaches used in living labs (Leminen, 2013), the participants’ perspective (Sharp & Salter, 2017), living lab design (Dell’Era & Landoni, 2014; Franz et al., 2015) and how innovation is diffused and scaled up (von Wirth et al., 2019). From a macro perspective, urban living labs are studied as a contemporary approach in urban development (Marvin et al., 2018). In the context of the paradigms of sustainable and smart cities, urban living labs are introduced to enable an exchange between professional and public stakeholders to foster transition processes and making often technology driven projects more human centred (J. Evans et al., 2019; J. Evans & Karvonen, 2014). Urban living labs are analysed as tools for socio-technical transition (Marvin et al., 2018, p. 4) towards sustainable and low carbon cities (Voytenko et al., 2016). The gap between micro and macro perspectives is also evident in the practice of urban living labs. On one hand, there are efforts to improve the innovation processes in urban living labs – for example, to develop new methods to support the creativity of the participants, to increase participation or to strengthen the evaluation of the experiments. On the other hand, there are efforts to accelerate the transition of cities towards more sustainability with new governance approaches, for example urban living labs. What is lacking is a better understanding of how innovation and urban transition processes are connected in urban living labs and how these can be coordinated. Urban living labs’ promise to provide innovation for urban sustainability transition is heavily put into question when they fail to be sensitive to existing urban actor networks. The importance of this sensitivity is also apparent in case studies. For example when Evans and Karvonen (2014) argue, that the success of living labs is dependent on “their ability to harness flows of knowledge for their particular contexts” and Trencher, Geissler and Yamanaka (2018, p. 185) observe that the transformative impact of a living lab “largely depends on the lab’s capacity to broaden its pursuit of technical innovation to encompass lifestyle and social dimensions”. In this "Research-in-Progress Paper" I present the theoretical background and methods for my research on urban living labs to develop a research perspective that aims to bridge the gap between micro and macro perspectives. At the time of writing, the empirical research is still in the planning phase. The actual research results are not yet available.


Urban living labs from a laboratory studies perspective The study of laboratory work has a long tradition that continues until today. In the 1970s scholars started to study laboratories as places of knowledge creation by following scientists in their laboratory work. These laboratory studies were a departure from established science studies in that they studied the actual places and process of producing science instead of analysing their “surrounding institutional circumstances� (Knorr-Cetina, 1995, p. 140). With their constructivist stance laboratory studies scholars showed that scientific knowledge production is highly context depending and contingent (Gingras, 1995, p. 123). Even though the approach has been criticised (Gingras, 1995), the concepts developed in laboratory studies were so successful, that all kinds of settings were framed as laboratories (Guggenheim, 2012; Sismondo, 2010, pp. 118–119). Comparing urban living labs with scientific laboratories (see J. Evans & Karvonen, 2011, 2014; Karvonen & van Heur, 2014), it is noticeable that both strive for placeless knowledge and want to enable consequence-free experiments. To this end, science laboratories are designed as closed spaces that allow total surveillance and control (Guggenheim 2012). In this way, they form a contrast to their uncontrolled and difficult to monitor surroundings. Urban living labs too are based on the distinction between inside (lab) and outside (city). Outside is the unsustainable, complex, and unique city. The majority of the world's population lives in cities and urbanisation processes are continuing to advance. Increasing urbanization is putting pressure on the environment, as city dwellers cause a disproportionate ecological footprint. At the same time, cities are seen as levers for the development of a more sustainable future, as small improvements in urban areas can have big impacts (Grimm et al., 2008). However, cities are complex systems of human and non-human actors. The complexity of the system means that the entirety of consequences of actions cannot be foreseen. Therefore, established governance mechanisms that rely on planning are of limited use. While different urban areas share common aspects, cities are also place specific. Accordingly, no place is like another and solutions working in one place might not work in another. Therefore, local knowledge of people who are deeply embedded in a place is of high value. While the city is outside, the lab is inside. It functions as a delimited place, which has controlled properties and is under constant observation. Scientists carry out experiments in the laboratory. Through control and observation, the validity of experiments can be ensured and experiments can be carried out without consequences for the environment. The laboratory transforms complex systems in which causal relationships are unknown into complicated systems in which causal relationships can be traced. In this way, knowledge can be created independent of location.


While urban living labs rely on experimental processes and on delimiting test areas from environment to create knowledge, inside and outside – lab and city – are folded together through approaches such as co-creation and real-life testing. Urban living labs are thus both inside and outside, lab and part of the city: “The concept of the ‘living laboratory’ blurs the distinctions between laboratory and field, inside and outside, controlled and uncontrolled experiment” (J. Evans & Karvonen, 2011, p. 127). For this research, I apply a perspective developed by Latour (1983) in his seminal article “Give me a Laboratory and I will Raise the World” to urban living labs. Latour aims to connect the inside and outside of the laboratory, to bridge the gap between micro/macro, internalist/externalist studies of laboratories by arguing that the success of laboratories depends on whether laboratory scientists manage to overcome the boundary between the inside and outside of the laboratory. To do this he describes three moves, that Louis Pasteur applies to develop a cure for anthrax. “From Latour’s perspective, the laboratory becomes a mechanism of control and distribution: it is through the strategic negotiation between inside and outside that the laboratory exerts its societal power” (Karvonen & van Heur, 2014, p. 382). I am interested in how this movement between lab and city works in the case of urban living labs. I want to follow the laboratory actors as they extract matters of concern from the urban and move it to the lab by measuring, monitoring, describing; accompany them in their movements between lab and city when they search for new solutions, when they experiment and evaluate; and finally, see how the evaluated solution is scaled back to the city; to get a better understanding of how urban living labs mediate between laboratory and field, between controlled and uncontrolled, between lab and city. In doing this, I build upon Karvonen and van Heur’s (2014) argument that the distinction between laboratory and city must be actively made and that this is a large part of the work that an urban laboratory must do. However, instead of focusing on how the boundary between lab and city is built and maintained, I want to follow the actors in an urban living lab as they overcome the boundary between lab and city to mediate between the two spaces, asking: How do mediation processes between lab and city work and how do they influence the outcomes of urban living lab projects?

The lab-city-interface Gieryn (2006) describes a double ontology that is very similar to that of urban living labs. Between 1918 and 1932 scholars from the University of Chicago used the city as their object of study. In their research, they frame Chicago at the same time as a field site – “a found and uncorrupted reality, […] requiring the analyst to get up close and personal” – and as a laboratory – “a controlled environment where artificial specimens yield generalities true anywhere, requiring of the analyst distance and objectivity” (Gieryn, 2006, p. 5).


The scholars move between these two perspectives through their writing often using allusions to established field or laboratory sciences. In his study on the Chicago School, Gieryn (2006, pp. 10–11) introduces the ‘LabField Shuttle’ to describe how the scholars move between the two perspectives they have on Chicago. On one end of the shuttle is the field, found by the researcher in a specific place and described through immersed research, on the other end is the lab, a “non-place”, made by the researcher and studied from a detached perspective. Using Gieryn’s shuttle to describe the double ontology of urban living labs, I introduce a heuristic tool I call the lab-city-interface to guide my research. I understand the lab-city-interface as the sociotechnical system mediating between lab and city (figure 1). The lab-city-interface is a heuristic tool in the sense that it guides my research’s perspective but is not a term in urban living lab practice. The aim of my research is to theoretically describe how the lab-city-interface enables urban living labs to function as a hybrid space that moves between the characteristics of laboratories and cities and to record how the interface acts as a dispositif through this.

Figure 1: lab-city-interface, graphic based on Gieryn’s ‘Lab-Field Shuttle’ (2006, 11)

Methods My research takes place in an urban lab in Switzerland and uses an action research approach. The studied urban lab does not use specific living lab approaches in its projects until now. For the research, I will introduce living lab approaches in three new innovation projects. This process builds on my double role as researcher and practitioner and allows me to connect practice and theory. In one role I work as part of the project team responsible to build-up and run the urban lab. In my other role, I research the same process. I do understand these two roles as connected, not as separate.


So far, there are no standardised living lab methods, therefore existing living lab methods (e.g. P. Evans et al., 2017; McCormick & Hartmann, 2017; Mulder et al., 2008; Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012) will be pragmatically combined and adapted to the innovation projects. With this procedure I want to make sure that the key elements of living lab approaches – multi-method approach, user engagement, multistakeholder participation, real-life setting, co-creation – are present and a clear process – exploration, experimentation, evaluation – is being followed (P. Evans et al., 2017, pp. 11–16), while allowing to adapt the approach to the individual needs and specific circumstances of the innovation projects. For the research, I follow the three innovation projects with ethnographic methods: firstly, through participant observation in the meetings and other activities of the projects. Secondly, by analysing documents produced by the projects (meeting minutes and publications). Thirdly, I will conduct additional interviews to get a better understanding of other project members perspective. For the article, the ethnographic data and literature on living lab methods will be analysed and combined with theories from laboratory and urban studies to generate in-depth case studies of the three innovation projects. With my research, I aim to contribute to the field with a critical assessments of how urban living lab concepts are implemented on the ground and what an urban living lab actually does. Beyond being critical, the article aims to introduce a perspective that generates starting points to advance urban living lab practices by foregrounding a so far understudied aspect of urban living labs that could provide a common ground for micro and macro perspectives on urban living labs.


References Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D., & Marez, L. D. (2016). Governing Quintuple Helix Innovation: Urban Living Labs and Socio-Ecological Entrepreneurship. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(3), 22–30. Dell’Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A Methodology between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design: Living Lab. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(2), 137–154. Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. (2011). Living Laboratories for Sustainability: Exploring the Politics and Epistemology of Urban Transition. In H. Bulkeley, V. Castán Broto, M. Hodson, & S. Marvin (Eds.), Cities and Low Carbon Transitions (pp. 126–141). Routledge. Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. (2014). ‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!’ - Urban Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures: Governance of low carbon futures in Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 413–430. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., Luque-Ayala, A., Martin, C., McCormick, K., Raven, R., & Palgan, Y. V. (2019). Smart and sustainable cities? Pipedreams, practicalities and possibilities. Local Environment, 24(7), 557–564. Evans, P., Schuurman, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Vervoort, K. (2017). Living Lab Methodology Handbook (K. Malmberg & I. Vaittinen, Eds.). U4IoT Consortium. Franz, Y., Tausz, K., & Thiel, S.-K. (2015). Contextuality and Co-Creation Matter: A Qualitative Case Study Comparison of Living Lab Concepts in Urban Research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(12), 48–55. Gieryn, T. F. (2006). City as Truth-Spot: Laboratories and Field-Sites in Urban Studies. Social Studies of Science, 36(1), 5–38. Gingras, Y. (1995). Following scientists through society? Yes, but at arm’s length! In J. Z. Buchwald (Ed.), Scientific Practice: Theories and Stories of Doing Physics (pp. 123– 148). Chicago University Press. Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science, 319(5864), 756–760. Guggenheim, M. (2012). Laboratizing and de-laboratizing the world: Changing sociological concepts for places of knowledge production. History of the Human Sciences, 25(1), 99–118. Kareborn, B. B., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Living Lab: An open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 356. Karvonen, A., & van Heur, B. (2014). Urban Laboratories: Experiments in Reworking Cities: Introduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 379–392.


Knorr-Cetina, K. (1995). Laboratory Studies: The Cultural Approach to the Study of Science. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 140–166). SAGE Publications, Inc. Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (pp. 141–170). Sage. Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11), 5–14. Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., Mai, L., McCormick, K., & Palgan, Y. V. (Eds.). (2018). Urban living labs: Experimenting with city futures. Routledge. McCormick, K., & Hartmann, C. (2017). The Emerging Landscape of Urban Living Labs: Characteristics, Practices and Examples. Lund University. Mulder, I., Fahy, C., Hribernik, K., Velthausz, D., Feurstein, K., Garcia, M., Schaffers, H., Mirijamdotter, A., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Towards Harmonized Methods and Tools for Living Labs. In P. Cunningham & M. Cunningham (Eds.), Expanding the knowledge economy: Issues, applications, case studies (Vol. 1, pp. 722–729). IOS Press. Sharp, D., & Salter, R. (2017). Direct Impacts of an Urban Living Lab from the Participants’ Perspective: Livewell Yarra. Sustainability, 9(10), 1699. Sismondo, S. (2010). Studying Laboratories. In An introduction to science and technology studies (2nd ed, pp. 106–119). Wiley-Blackwell. Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. (2012). The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Luleå University of Technology.!/file/LivingLabsMethodologyBook_web.pdf Trencher, G., Geissler, A., & Yamanaka, Y. (2018). 15 years and still living: The Basel Pilot Region laboratory and Switzerland’s pursuit of a 2,000-Watt Society. In S. Marvin, H. Bulkeley, L. Mai, K. McCormick, & Y. V. Palgan (Eds.), Urban living labs: Experimenting with city futures (pp. 167–188). Routledge. von Wirth, T., Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Coenen, L. (2019). Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: Mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 229–257. Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2016). Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54.


Research in Progress paper (track: Urban & Societal Challenges)

Urban consumption spaces as living labs: A novel hospitality experience measure toward a futureproof equilibrium Authors Julie Ferguson, Karoline Wiegerink, Stan Majoor

Abstract Many cities are facing challenges in finding an equilibrium in the use of urban consumption spaces. Urban consumption spaces comprise different sociospatial relationships, bringing together work, consumption, recreation and habitation in a delimited area within the city. This mixed character is a potential source of creative urban quality, but this quality is not always realized, leading to on the one hand 'overheating' in some urban consumption spaces faced with excessive, imbalanced usage, and on the other ‘undercooling’, with declining visitors and vacant lots. We focus on Amsterdam as our living lab, in our aim to develop a new perspective toward reinstating the sociospatial relationships between local community stakeholders and to restore the equilibrium of Amsterdam city center as an urban consumption space. In doing so, we address the research question How do residents, entrepreneurs and visitors perceive ‘hospitality’ in their lived-in experience of Amsterdam as urban consumption space, and how does this contribute to community connectedness?

Key words: city hospitality, urban consumption spaces, connectedness, value pyramid, urban commons


Introduction: understanding the disequilibrium in living lab Amsterdam The city as a living lab is a useful perspective for analyzing what is required to address some of today’s major urban challenges. A key function of a living labs is to understand the core of urban challenges and to devise a useful, sustainable and practical repertoire in response. This is done by developing a flexible collaboration structure aimed at innovation co-creation among local entrepreneurs, NGOs, citizens, municipal stakeholders and knowledge institutions (Ferguson et al., 2020). Practically, a living lab is a place where explicit experiments are undertaken, related to a great variety of themes in the public sphere (Gasco, 2017; Majoor, 2016: 7). Conceptually, living labs can be considered as spaces for institutional change, helping to understand the relations between innovation and existing frameworks (Majoor et al., 2016). Living labs have been eagerly embraced as a useful concept to analyze urban issues and experiment with novel solutions by a multitude of scholars and practitioners1. However, critical questions remain, related for instance to the effectiveness of living labs as a possible solution to the many and multifaceted urban challenges, to questions of inclusion/exclusion, incremental/radical innovation, and to scalability of approaches for the city as a whole (Hamers, 2016). However, an important dimension that often remains unaddressed but which is a basis for any of these questions, is the question of operationalization. In particular, the development of mixed-methods frameworks are often unconsidered. However, for a thorough analysis the complex questions embedded in urban living labs such considerations are essential. In this paper, we respond to this need, whereby the development of a mixed-methods framework is a first contribution our paper offers. We address this dimension by zooming into urban consumption spaces as living labs. Urban consumption spaces comprise different sociospatial relationships, bringing together work, consumption, recreation and habitation in a delimited area within the city (Mullins et al., 1999). This mixed character is a potential source of creative urban quality, but this quality is not always realized, for at least two reasons. First, many present-day urban consumption areas face increasing spatial and social fragmentation. Second, many areas face substantial, often concentrated numbers of visitors, who dominate the use and design of these areas. Analysis of hotel visits in Amsterdam for example show ever increasing numbers, from 8 million hotel stays in 2000 to 13.5 million in 2016, and a further 12.5% rise in the first four months of 2019 alone compared to a year before (Toeristische Barometer 20182019). As a result, some urban consumption spaces are faced with excessive, imbalanced usage, which (building on Mansvelt, 2008) we describe as a process of


For an overview and examples see Majoor et al. 2017, Lab Amsterdam (Dutch version: Laboratorium Amsterdam). Amsterdam: THOTH).


‘overheating’, while others are ‘undercooled’, with declining visitors and vacant lots (De Kreek & Ferguson, forthcoming). In the light of the present corona pandemic, the vulnerability of imbalanced urban consumption spaces has become particularly salient. Some areas – such as Amsterdam city center – are almost completely empty, devoid of tourists, showing the lack of functionality they hold for local residents. Other areas – such as the market area Plein ‘40-’45 – have come to a standstill, resulting in severe financial crisis for an already economically weak population and city district. These developments make it particularly significant to analyze what it needed to restore the equilibrium of urban consumption spaces. In this study, we focus on Amsterdam as our living lab: a space to facilitate experimentation about sustainability solutions for metropolitan problems, where residents, companies, governments, students and researchers collectively tackle by immersing themselves in the solution as it is being developed (Majoor et al., 2017; Von Wirth et al., 2018). We analyze how urban consumption spaces in Amsterdam can re-establish a futureproof equilibrium, and to this end develop a novel measure, aimed at analyzing city hospitality from an urban commons approach. This comprises our second contribution. The theoretical underpinnings to this contribution are explained in more detail below.

Theory and context: an urban commons approach to city hospitality The city as a living lab is an appropriate setting to reconsider what is required to regain an equilibrium in urban consumption spaces. Cities facing increasing numbers of visitors and a tight housing market in particular have an urgent need for such reconsideration. The city center of Amsterdam is a salient example of such a context, where overusage of urban consumption spaces contributed to a one-sided (tourist-oriented) retail portfolio, a declining entrepreneurial climate, and an increasingly tense housing market. Moreover, recent studies show an increasingly negative attitude among city residents toward tourists and tourism, due to daily disturbances, crowds and pollution (Gerritsma and Vork, 2017; Ouwehand and Wiegerink, 2019; Ruissaard 2019). As a result, many residents are moving away or plan to do so, and an increasingly hostile discourse is ensuing, all in all creating a downward spiral in terms of balance and liveability, and contributing to a feeling of estrangement (‘vervreemding’; Hemel, 2019). The present absence of tourists as a result of the current corona measures emphasizes the urgency of addressing this one-sided strategy with tourism as the economic heart of the city center. In an effort to stimulate more balanced consumption spaces in Amsterdam city center, the city municipality is aimed at ‘de-marketing’ the city (Wiegerink et al., 2018). Tourism remains an important focus, but policy explicitly favors Amsterdam residents and entrepreneurs (Amsterdam municipality, 2018, p.1; Wiegerink et al., 2018). In this changing context, it is unclear what a balanced consumption space comprises and how a balance between liveability and hospitality can be restored.


We analyze this issue by focusing on hospitality in an urban context, conceptualized as ‘city hospitality’. This is defined as “a long-term process focused on the creation, strengthening and retaining of the hospitality experience for the several target groups within a city; based on a professional, commercial vision of hospitality adding value for the city, backed up by a policy plan and use of the appropriate tools” (Van Prooijen & Wiegerink, 2012; Wiegerink, 2012). From this perspective, a different form of hospitality is needed for urban stakeholders, each with their own divergent interests, comprising visitors as well as residents and entrepreneurs (Hospers 2009). Our study is also embedded in public management discussions on collaborative governance as an innovative and inclusive way of realizing workable solutions for public questions (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Akin to the concept of the city as living lab, Foster and Iaione (2019) suggest that an urban commons approach can be particularly helpful as a collaborative response to urban challenges. Namely, this approach takes into consideration the diverging interests of all key stakeholders and involves them in defining the question at hand and developing a shared solution. Urban commons are defined as shared spaces comprising open access goods (tangible or intangible), and which calls for a coordinated approach between all stakeholders in order to realize sustainable management of the goods (Foster & Iaione, 2019). We focus on the community at the heart of the urban commons, operationalizing an important component of the city hospitality debate, namely the interaction between visitors and a community. All in all, it is clear that a new perspective is called for to reinstate the socio-spatial relationships between local community stakeholders and to restore the equilibrium of Amsterdam city center as an urban consumption space. We aim to respond to this need by providing clarification of this complex issue, guided by the research question: How do residents, entrepreneurs and visitors perceive ‘hospitality’ in their lived-in experience of Amsterdam as urban consumption space, and how does this contribute to community connectedness?

Case study: Operationalization Our study seeks to identify how three key stakeholders groups (visitors, entrepreneurs, residents) perceive ‘city hospitality’. A key component of hospitality is feeling connected to a space, a degree of social cohesion within a community (Forrest & Kearns, 2001), represented by ease of finding one’s way around and being able to read and understand information provided about the city (Van Prooijen & Wiegerink, 2012). This is operationalized as feeling welcome within consumption spaces, on the street, encountering other residents, visitors, people in public transport and taxi drivers. The research question calls for a mixed-methods approach (Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Venkatesh et al., 2013) comprising first, a qualitative orientation of the context through desk research and semi-structured interviews, toward


identifying perceptions of a hospitable city from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Second, we deploy a quantitative survey aimed at testing the hospitality experience by measuring the quality of community connectedness. We develop the survey drawing on Pijls et al. (2017) for visitor experience scale, and a newly developed scale for resident and entrepreneur experiences2. Through our study, conducted in three Amsterdam neighborhoods, we analyzed the ingredients of a hospitable urban consumption space and connect these to effect variable community connectedness, thereby showing how this effect has an impact on urban consumption spaces. The value pyramid (figure 1 below, based on the hospitality model) conceptualizes this analytical framework.3

Impact on urban consumption space connectedness, community, social cohesion, attractiveness for all stakeholders Effect on visitors | residents | entrepreneurs satisfaction, engagement, loyalty, word of mouth, pride Experience of visitors | residents | entrepreneurs experience scales

Service level | Hospitable consumption space product |behavior | environment

Figure 1: Hospitality value pyramid


Forthcoming research by students Sarkoll & WĂźnsch of Hotelschool The Hague, supervised by Wiegerink and Huizing. 3 The next version of this paper will include a step by step explanation of each of the dimensions of the value pyramid, as well as their interrelations toward creating hospitality value. It will also include the hospitality experience measure and the results of its development and testing; due to the Corona pandemic the empirical work underlying its development has been delayed.


Implications for theory and practice The study provides two contributions, connecting two scholarly domains. First, our analysis helps to conceptually develop a city hospitality perspective on urban consumption spaces, extending Wiegerink’s (2012) hospitality model. Based on this conceptualization, we develop a new city hospitality measurement index, which is an important means to operationalize the extent of imbalance in an urban consumption space. In doing so, we provide an important advance in hospitality studies in enabling more reliable analysis of city hospitality measurement. This is an important methodological contribution toward analyzing the dynamics of consumption spaces as living labs. A second contribution is to the domain of public management, and more specifically questions of developing urban commons as an innovative form of collaborative governance. We specifically focus on how forms of local cooperation between a variety of stakeholders can help to counter processes of alienation among residents, entrepreneurs and visitors, and to generate more productive responses to overheated consumption spaces. Our study also contributes to practice by concretely explaining how different perspectives on city hospitality can contribute to disequilibrium and, in line therewith, what kind of specific stakeholder responses are likely to be effective. In doing so, we provide a practical repertoire for developing more effective responses to the urgent debate on restoring the equilibrium of Amsterdam city center as an attractive urban consumption space for visitors, residents and entrepreneurs alike.


References Amsterdam Municipality (2018). Stad in Balans 2018-2022. Naar een nieuw evenwicht tussen leefbaarheid en gastvrijheid. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Amsterdam Municipality (2004). The making of‌ The city marketing of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. De Kreek, M., Ferguson, J.E., Risselada, A., Van Vliet, P., Meerkerk, J., Hagemans, I., Majoor, S. (forthcoming). Welbegrepen eigenbelang: Op weg naar een toekomstbestendig evenwicht van Amsterdamse consumptieruimten. Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246-1264. Ferguson, J.E., Van der Heijden, E., De Zeeuw, A. 2020. Co-creation in urban living labs: A multilevel perspective on labour market innovation. In: Hirvikoski, T. et al. (Eds.) Cocreating and Orchestrating Multistakeholder Innovation. Laurea University Press. 10-18. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban studies, 38(12), 2125-2143. Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2019). Ostrom in the City: Design Principles and Practices for the Urban Commons. In Dan Cole, Blake Hudson, Jonathan Rosenbloom (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons. Oxford: Routledge. Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90-98. Gerritsma, R., & Vork, J. (2017). Amsterdam residents and their attitude towards tourists and tourism. Coactivity: Philosophy, Communication/Santalka: Filosofija, Komunikacija, 25(1), 85-98. Hamers, David (2016). De innovatieve stad. Hoe steden met slagkracht, maatwerk en leervermogen kunnen bijdragen aan economisch, groene en sociale innovaties. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving Hemel, Z. (2019). Een nieuwe historische binnenstad. Visie op de binnenstad van Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam. Hospers, G.J. (2009). Citymarketing in perspectief. Lelystad: IVIO Wereldschool.


Majoor, M. Majoor, S. (2016). De stad als experiment: de organisatie van stedelijke innovatie. Lectorale Rede. Amsterdam: Hogeschool van Amsterdam. Majoor, S., Morel, M., Straathof, A., Suurenbroek, F., & van Winden, W. (2017). Laboratorium Amsterdam: Werken, leren, reflecteren. Bussum: THOTH. Mansvelt, J. (2008). Geographies of consumption: citizenship, space and practice. Progress in Human Geography, 32(1), 105-117. Mullins, P., Natalier, K., Smith, P., & Smeaton, B. (1999). Cities and consumption spaces. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 44-71. Ouwehand, M., & Wiegerink, K. (2019). The attitude and its influential factors of residents towards tourism in the city center of Amsterdam. Hotelschool The Hague Working Paper Series(5). Ruissaard, S. (2019). Tourism Gentrification and Livability of Amsterdam Residents. BBA, Hotelschool The Hague, The Hague/Amsterdam. Toeristische barometer 2018-2019, Van Prooijen, M., and K.Wiegerink (2012) The City Hospitality Experience Model – Shaping a hospitable City. Short paper EuroCHRIE 2012. Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Bala, H. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly 37(1): 21-54. Wirth, T. von, Fuenfschilling, F., Frantzeskaki, N. & Coenen, L. (2019). Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. European Planning Studies, 27(2): 229-257. Wiegerink, K., Van der Drift, K., Ringeling, I. (2018). Cityhospitality in Collegeakkoorden. The Hague: Hotelschool The Hague. Wiegerink, K. (2012). Hoe gastvrij is uw stad? The Hague: Hotelschool The Hague.


Research in Progress paper

“The more you are willing to give, the more you also get“ How multifaceted, multi-stakeholder innovation ecosystems are governed and orchestrated, and how to research them? Authors Tuija Hirvikoski Kaisla Saastamoinen Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Ratatie 22, 01300 Vantaa, Finland. E-mail: [firstname.lastname]

Abstract Despite the use of Living Labs continuing to spread further with the increase of global complex challenges, the question of how the multi-stakeholder collaborative innovation has been governed and orchestrated within multifaceted innovation ecosystems has remained unanswered. In this paper, orchestration refers to such purposeful actions as governance, facilitation, mediation, interpretation, or brokering used to enhance multi-stakeholder innovation co-creation, particularly when aiming to solve wicked problems while guaranteeing the system’s resilience and economic vitality. Orchestration helps innovation ecosystems to reach their common goals and their members to create and capture value. This paper introduces a method used to research the role of orchestration in multi-stakeholder innovation. The first findings on what has facilitated and hindered the fairly large, mature and successful innovation ecosystems with regards to achieving their goals underline the significance of the informal side of innovation activities as opposed to formal governance models and actions often highlighted in the literature and policy documents. Additionally, from the methodological point of view, it was learned that based solely on publicly available information on the innovation ecosystems, most of the first findings would not have been uncovered. Instead, thematic interviews where the interviewees could freely reflect on the research questions enabled these findings to be unearthed. The restricted case findings cannot be generalised, therefore further research is needed.


Key words: multi-stakeholder innovation co-creation, orchestration, innovation ecosystems, living labs, hindering and facilitating

Submission details 1. Introduction In order to govern global complex issues, i.e. innovating around the wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) requires a combination of diverse commercial and social innovation (Russo & Hughes, 2000). As no actor has all the necessary tangible and intangible resources to operate successfully in isolation, innovation calls for crossdisciplinary, cross-border, cross-sectoral collaboration (Mazzucato, 2018; Pera, Occhiocupo, & Clarke, 2016), which in this article is called participatory multistakeholder innovation. Both practice and theory (Edwards-Schachter, 2016; Hirvikoski, 2018) indicate that the innovation co-creation among multiple actors does not happen without support. We call this support orchestration. The concepts of innovation and innovation ecosystem have changed and become more multifaceted since OECD recognised the need of innovation policies and such concepts as regional and national innovation systems (Lundvall, 2007) in the 1970s. Chesborough (2003) emphasized the difference between closed in-house and open innovation. Democratization of innovation and user innovation were discovered by Eric von Hippel (2005), whereas Melkas and Harmaakorpi (2012) launched the notion of practise-based innovation, all relevant concepts for multi-stakeholder innovation. The space or place in which innovation evolves is metaphorically called ecosystem. ENoLL refers to Living Labs as open innovation ecosystems (European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), n.d.). In order to scale up, technological and commercial innovations need the support of e.g. social, user and service innovations (Lusch & Nambisan, 2015) - and vice versa. Quadruple or Penta/Quintuple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2003; Franc & KaradĹžija, 2019) and Open Innovation 2.0 (Curley & Salmelin, 2018) are central concepts in innovation and market co-creation and dissemination for both social and commercial innovations within multi-actor ecosystems. They emphasize the synergy among all actors and actions as well as the enriching effect of nature and the possibility of serendipity.


Co-creation is a central concept in multi-stakeholder innovation. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) defined co-creation as an established way to create value in cooperation between customers and companies. Pera et al. (2016), based on previous research, discovered “how value is co-created by the interaction of a multiplicity of stakeholders, rather than in a dyadic interaction process between two entities”. They emphasise the shift to stakeholder ecosystem co-creation i.e. “the interaction between stakeholders with different and, at times, conflicting identities that are all temporarily brought together within the same ecosystem, triggers the mechanism of value co-creation.” Often co-creation literature focuses on interaction between an organisation and its clients. Apart from e.g. Rabelo and Bernus (2015), there is not yet much available information on what hinders and facilitates large, multifaceted thematic or city-based ecosystems creating value for all stakeholder involved. This research was initiated in order to start filling this knowledge gap, focusing especially on the orchestration in multi-stakeholder ecosystems. When there are multiple stakeholder interactions within the ecosystem, it needs to be facilitated. In this research, this facilitating is called orchestration and it is used as an umbrella term for different activities such as management in ecosystems, facilitating, coordinating, brokering, mediating, interpreting, webbing, and building (Äyväri, Hirvikoski, & Uitto, 2019). Orchestration has been widened to include innovation deals (Ferguson, de Zeeuw, & van der Heijden, in press), framework agreements, and policy structures (Juselius, in press). Orchestration in literature has often been used in the context of companies and business innovation (Äyväri & Spilling, in press). E.g. Verhoeven and Maritz (2012, p. 5) define orchestration as follows: “The set of deliberate, purposeful actions undertaken by a focal organisation for initiating and managing innovation processes in order to exploit marketplace opportunities, enabling the focal organisation and network members to create value (expand the pie) and/or extract value (gain a larger slice of the pie) from the network”. In contrast, this paper aims to lay grounds for the definition of polyphonic and multi-innovation ecosystem orchestration. Based on earlier research (Äyväri & Spilling, in press) orchestration consists of three processes: “managing knowledge mobility, managing innovation appropriability, and managing network stability”, all the stakeholders strive for value creation, and different kind of actors can be orchestrators. This research aims to create and test a method to understand: • How is multi-stakeholder innovation co-creation governed within the ecosystem? - What kinds of models, structures, mechanisms and practises facilitate and hinder different multi-stakeholder innovation ecosystems with regards to fulfilling their goals?


How is stakeholder engagement, asset cultivation, and innovation co-creation orchestrated in dynamic ecosystems?

In order to examine these topics, a set of research methods was created and tested in autumn 2019 – spring 2020 (see Chapter 2.).

2. Methodological considerations The complexity of the research target demands for a multi-method approach and triangulation. In the first phase of the research, workshops with innovation co-creation experts and practitioners were organised and a list of international innovation ecosystems relevant to the research questions was crafted with the help of Cordis, ENoLL office, and the researchers’ extensive tacit knowledge of globally successful diverse innovation ecosystems. This list consisted of more than 100 ecosystems. Combining those with relevant innovation theories, a matrix was created to collect data from public documents of 15 chosen cases out of the 100+. After this, the collected case data was analysed and discussed among three researchers. The analysis showed that other research methods were yet required in order to fill further knowledge gaps in specific areas of the research. Of the leading mature innovation ecosystems, three Finnish ones were chosen to be examined more closely due to Finland being one of the world-leaders in various innovation scoreboards. During the second part of the research, the missing information was gathered from five of the most experienced innovation ecosystem orchestrating professionals working within the chosen ecosystems, with the help of four thematic interviews. The interviews were recorded, and immediately afterwards two researchers analysed both the findings and the functionality of the method. Thirdly, continuous comparative content analysis was used to code and categorise the findings and to understand how the method worked. Also, the first empirical results were compared to theoretical knowledge, findings of cases presented in the forthcoming Co-creation Orchestration (CCO) publication (2020, in press), and results of other findings from the CCO project as well as from other projects on relevant themes such as Co-created Health and Wellbeing (CoHeWe), Product Validation in Health (ProVaHealth), CityDrivers, and Kalasatama: Co-designing wellbeing. Reliability of the research This research used triangulation that is typically seen as “a strategy (test) for improving the validity and reliability of research or evaluation of findings” (Golafshani, 2003). The reliability of qualitative research is evaluated based on credibility, conformability, reflectivity, and transferability (Kylmä & Juvakka, 2012).


The extensive experience of the chosen interviewed orchestrators verified the credibility of this research. Moreover, the research data consisted of inclusive documentation describing the research phenomenon comprehensively, supplemented by the researchers’ tacit knowledge. Additionally, besides systematic documentation, two or three researchers applied continuous comparative method. The case study research design limits the generalizability of its findings.

3. Results and discussion The first main finding was the significant role of the informal side of innovation activities as opposed to formal governance models and actions often highlighted in the literature and in the results of other projects related to the previously mentioned CCO project. With Finland’s long history of well-organised open innovation ecosystems and the country scoring high on most of the global innovation scoreboards, it was surprising that the formal side (e.g. decision making, financial and managerial structures, or rules) of innovation ecosystem governance was considered only as a precondition for innovation, whereas the informal aspects (e.g. deep collaboration based on trust and communication) were emphasised as the actual key success factors. Secondly, publicly available information is not sufficient to study such a complex phenomenon but thematic interviews were needed. Table 1 introduces the coded and categorised findings regarding facilitating and hindering factors from the public materials and interviews of the three cases. Seven factors (formal 1-7) were found describing mainly the formal side of governance and orchestration, and one characteristic (8) that positions the ecosystem among other ecosystems was discovered. Out of the seven factors, the first four (1-4) are mostly within the authority of the ecosystem while the three others (5-7) affect the ecosystem significantly but the authority lies outside of the ecosystem. Additionally, seven factors that concern the informal side of the ecosystem were found (informal 1-7). One of those (4: Perception of time) arose only as a negative, hindering factor.


Facilitating factors • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •


• • • • •

• • • • • •

• • • • •

Hindering factors

1. Strong vision • contradiction between vision and everyday life • suboptimisation and fragmented project work (PM&I) 2. Governance and orchestration of multi-stakeholder innovation strong visionary upper management • rigid structures (PM) guardian in upper management • lack of dedicated resources immediately impacts collaboration non-hierarchical governance model • lack of time for co-creation, especially a shared leadership and decision-making problem in health and wellbeing sector decision-making by hands-on • coordination of strategic goals of various professionals stakeholders is challenging orchestrator: interpreter and communicator • co-innovation is laborious and calls for of different aims to create mutual language active brokering and facilitation flow of information (PM) • lack of digital know-how of stakeholders orchestrator: brokering of international and involved national needs, solutions, and contacts orchestrator: facilitator of collaboration, business development, agile pilots, RDI orchestrated collaboration with international networks/ecosystems (PM&I) common operative models and practices in the ecosystem clear tasks as well as operative and financial roles of the orchestrator clear and well communicated process for innovation activities “one-stop-shop" as an external communicator (PM&I) fast interference in case of problems (PM) of the PPPP, emphasis on public-private role of citizen primarily through testing, feedback and initiatives 3. Funding of collaboration and other shared resources cooperative • funding based only on projects each organisation funds own activities core funding co-creation and testing facilities and labs (PM&I) jointly funded human resources multifaceted open data for digital solutions (PM&I) 4. Systematic and continuous evaluation internal evaluation • measuring effectiveness difficult • external evaluation lack of measuring tools 5. Formal agreements among participating organisations framework agreement • lack of or rigidity of agreements agreement of shared resources 6. Innovative urban planning creating conditions to utilize proximity among stakeholders (PM&I) 7. Regional Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3) promoting shared vision and providing hints on what to contribute and how to benefit from collaboration (PM&I) encompassing global, long-term opportunities and challenges emphasizing active citizenship (PM)



8. Concentration of specialists, ecosystem critical mass, and location Strong concentration of specialists, otherwise within ecosystem of limited critical mass, and remote location enforcing collaboration as a central characteristics of ecosystem (PM&I) • within region • with other regions/cities • within international ecosystems

• • •


• • • •

• • • • • • • • •

1. History of collaboration Shared history of collaboration (PM&I) • No established collaboration (PM) 2. Openness and transparency of culture and action models continuous informal and formal communication and interaction among ecosystem stakeholders (PM&I) willingness to share 3. Personal attitudes among innovation ecosystem orchestrator and other professionals willingness to understand and learn from • resistance to change diverse people with different points of view • jealousy willingness to collaborate • participation for wrong reasons encouraging, listening, asking (PM) • lack of conception of benefits in the long run perseverance 4. Perception of time • Different perception of time among public, private, and academia 5. Commitment to common goals engaged and active stakeholders (PM&I) • uncommitted stakeholders organisations' monetary commitment 6. Creating conditions for growing internal motivation and genuine value among professionals encouragement • non-realistic expectations (“Ecosystem is not a bottomless barrel of wishes”) immaterial rewarding meaningfulness through participatory activities respect of expertise and providing visibility opportunities to innovate (PM&I) 7. Trust within ecosystem among stakeholders • lack of trust within ecosystem in orchestrator

Table 1. Results of facilitating and hindering factors of multi-stakeholder innovation co-creation, and the difference between the results from public materials and interviews from 3 cases (public materials (PM), public materials and interviews (PM&I), and solely from interviews without a code)

The three cases being from Finland, it was surprising that in the interviews citizen participation was not highlighted, since in the Nordic smart city governance model including legislation (Bremer et al., 2020) the citizen is implicitly always present (“people first”). This might explain why the interviewees concentrated more on publicprivate partnership. In the public materials, the benefits of the ecosystem for the citizens were emphasized, whereas the interviewees highlighted the economic vitality of the ecosystem and its testing environments and services for companies. In the interviews, the role of citizens was primarily articulated through testing, feedback, and initiatives, and less through participatory engagement as active co-creators.


Additionally, shared or mutual learning or conflicts were not emphasized in the public materials or in the interviews. The findings suggest that in cross-sectoral, cross-organisation and cross-border innovation co-creation, successful business models and good leadership alone do not generate results, despite the focus on these in the public case documents, other CCO-related projects, and relevant business literature. In the thematic interviews, there was a clear message: “It is people who do cross-border and crossorganisational work and get results, not organisations”. “Although formal structures and models vary, it is the informal human interaction that makes the ecosystem sustainable.” With these comments, the interviewees referred to the collaboration between the professionals representing various organisation and sectors. An experienced orchestrator of a leading ecosystem named communication as the biggest challenge, highlighting the importance of informal activities: ”[The thing that most hinders multi-stakeholder innovation is] working on one’s own; [when] quite little of what is done is shared with the world. Discussions and encounters - there isn’t such a thing as too much of those.” “Very important [in multi-stakeholder innovation] is continuous interaction. [Even though it is important, often] one does not regard it as part of a management model. It is not written anywhere but such practice has just arisen. There is a need for plenty [informal] ‘corridor discussions’ and messengers.” Additionally, according to another interviewee, “Mistrust or jealousy completely obstructs [the successful operation of the innovation ecosystem].” “Instead of hierarchy, [the successful operation of the innovation ecosystem is] based on trust and collaboration. Without these, it is impossible for the ecosystem to operate.” From comments such as these, it is concluded that even when functioning formal structures and processes are in place, failures on the informal side can greatly hinder the success of an innovation ecosystem or annihilate its operation.

4. Conclusions As wicked problems and shocks affect any type of system, they call for holistic and long-term governing mechanisms supporting resilience (Lostrangio, in press) with an emphasis on both the informal and formal factors of ecosystems. In a country that regularly tops various innovation scoreboards, established and successful ecosystems did not consider well-functioning formal structures alone sufficient but instead highlighted the informal side ¬- arguing that failing on the informal aspects can obstruct the whole ecosystem despite functional formal structures and processes. This result would not have been uncovered purely based on publicly available materials and formal documents but diverse and complementary research methods, in this case interviews, were needed.


Based on the five experienced orchestrators’ interviews on three multifaceted, mature, and successful ecosystems, the informal side of organisation within the ecosystem affects its ability to reach its goals more than the formal aspects - even when the primary goal of the ecosystem is to support the vitality of regional economy and businesses. Orchestrators emphasised the long-term benefit of the system over the subsystems: “The more you are willing to give, the more you also get“. In order to draw wider conclusions, more empirical research is needed. Moreover, in literature reviews, it would be suggested to consider the field of science of the research, the maturity level of the ecosystem under construction, as well as the professional orientation of the orchestrator as important background factors of the research results. These background factors can potentially have an impact on the findings regarding the emphasis of the different aspects of governance, orchestration, and actions, as well as e.g. setting of goals of the ecosystem. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research described in this paper is a part of a wider Co-creation Orchestration (CCO) project , funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and Laurea University of Applied Sciences. The authors would like to express their specific gratitude to Ines Vaittinen from ENoLL, the CCO team, the five ecosystem orchestrators, and other experts who provided their valuable time and expertise to discuss the topic of this research with us.


References Bremer, O., Kinnunen, N., Koponen, J., Laurila, L., Leppänen, J., Malho, M., Mokka, R., & Suikkanen, H. (2020). People first: A vision for the global urban age. Lessons from Nordic Smart Cities. Helsinki: Demos Helsinki. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Curley, M. & Salmelin, B. (2018). Open Innovation 2.0: The new mode of digital innovation for prosperity and sustainability. Switzerland: Springer. Edwards-Schachter, M.E. (2016). Challenges to firms' collaborative innovation facing the innovation babel tower. In Al-Hakim et al. (Eds.), Handbook of research on driving competitive advantage through sustainable, lean, and disruptive innovation. Etzkowitz, H. (2002). The Triple Helix of university - industry – government implications for policy and evaluation. Science Policy Institute Working paper 2002·11 European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). (n.d.). What are Living Labs. Retrieved from Ferguson, J., de Zeeuw, A., & van der Heijden, E. (in press). Co-creation in urban living labs: A multilevel network perspective on labor market innovation. In Hirvikoski & Merimaa (Eds.), Multi-stakeholder Innovation Co-creation and Orchestration. Laurea University of Applied Sciences. Franc, S. & Karadžija, D. (2019). Quintuple helix approach: The case of the European Union. Notitia - journal for economic, business and social issues. 2019 number 5. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 8(4), 597-607. Hirvikoski, T. (2018). Socio-ecological transition pioneered by Living Labs. Foreword in Dezuanni, M., Foth, M., Mallan, K., & Hughes, H. (Eds.), Digital participation through social Living Labs – Valuing local knowledge, enhancing engagement. Cambridge, UK: Chandos Publishing. Juselius, J. (in press). The view from the Region: opportunities and challenges for innovation and co-orchestration. In Hirvikoski & Merimaa (Eds.), Multi-stakeholder Innovation Cocreation and Orchestration. Laurea University of Applied Sciences. Kylmä, J., & Juvakka, T. (2007). Laadullinen terveystutkimus. Edita. Lostrangio, M. (in press). How can local authorities plan for urban resilience? Co-creation and multi-stakeholder engagement in the Municipality of Potenza (Italy). In Hirvikoski & Merimaa (Eds.), Multi-stakeholder Innovation Co-creation and Orchestration. Laurea University of Applied Sciences.


Lundval, P.-Å. (2007). Innovation systems—Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation 14(1), 95-119. Lusch, R. F., & Nambisan, S. (2015). Service innovation: A service-dominant logic perspective. Management Innovation Systems Quarterly, 39(1), 155-176. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union. A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. European Commission. Publications Office of the European Union, 2018. Melkas, H. & Harmaakorpi, V. (Eds.). (2012). Practice-based Innovation: Insights, applications and policy implications. Springer. Pera, R., Occhiocupo, N., & Clarke, J. (2016). Motives and resources for value co-creation in a multi-stakeholder ecosystem: A managerial perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4033-4041. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co‐creating unique value with customers. Strategy & leadership. Rabelo & Bernus (2015). A Holistic Model of Building Innovation Ecosystems. IFACPapersOnLine, 48(3), 2250-2257. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Russo, M., & Hughes, T. P. (2000). Complementary innovations and generative relationships: an ethnographic study. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 9(6), 517-558 Verhoeven, K. B. T., & Maritz, A. (2012). Collaboration for Innovation: Network processes and capabilities. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-18). Manchester: The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM). Von Hippel, E. A. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Äyväri, A., & Spinning, K. (in press). Orchestration practices in multi-stakeholder cocreation. Case Agile Piloting at Smart Kalasatama. In Hirvikoski & Merimaa (Eds.), Multistakeholder Innovation Co-creation and Orchestration. Laurea University of Applied Sciences. Äyväri, A., Hirvikoski, T., & Uitto, H. (2019). Identifying Living Lab orchestrators’ individuallevel skills. Proceedings of the OpenLivingLab Days Conference. Co-creating Innovation: Scaling-up from local to global. Brussels: European Network of Living Labs.


Full Research paper

Open Innovation Business Models : the example of living labs in France Author Ingrid Fasshauer, Gustave Eiffel University, DICEN-IDF research laboratory, member of Brie’Nov (living lab for rural development)

Abstract Livings labs, emerging forms of collaborative innovation including users in their real-life context, are more and more numerous in France. Even if part of them is organized in a network, they are very diverse in terms of portage, legal structure and above all business model. The latter is all the more crucial since Schuurman (2015) notes a mortality rate of 40% on living labs labeled by the largest network of living labs, European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). A large number of living labs thus have an unwanted temporary nature (Leminen et al., 2012). Based on a survey, it highlights that three forms of value are generated by the living labs studied: knowledge creation, social impact and economic value. Revenues can be exclusively public, exclusively private or mixed. As for the sharing of value, it is a concern for several living labs which respond by ensuring the dissemination of their innovations to a wide audience. Only research-oriented laboratories have intellectual property protection practices. By taking these three dimensions into account, we propose a typology distinguishing between four categories of living labs.

Key words: Living Lab, Open Innovation, Business Model, Value sharing


Open Innovation Business Models : the example of living labs in France

Introduction Living labs are ecosystems in which end users (customers, users, patients, etc.) and other stakeholders are involved over a long period in the development of an innovation, in a real environment, using an approach of iterative research combining different methods (Schuurman et al., 2012). The creation of a living lab is the result of various initiatives. While some are supported by laboratories or research organizations, others are carried out by companies, public organizations, even associations or individuals. Although their structures are different, they are characterized by five common dimensions (Ballon and Schuurman, 2015): (1) active user involvement, (2) real life environment, (3) participation of multiple stakeholders, (4) multi-method approach and (5) co-creation. Very focused initially on technological innovation, then on subjects such as health and smart cities, living labs are increasingly identified in relation to social innovation (Edwards-Schachter et al. 2012, Hillgren et al ., 2011). Indeed, they encompass societal and technological dimensions simultaneously in a business-citizen-government-university partnership. These structures are developing in France and around the world. The European network of living labs (ENoLL) thus claims 150 active members in 2018. Knowing that more than 400 different structures have received the label since 2006, this gives an indication of the fragility of the economic model of such structures. They often find it difficult to translate the value created into a sustainable revenue model. Consequently, a large number of living labs are of an unwanted temporary nature (Leminen et al., 2012). We define business models as the content, structure and governance of transactions inside the company and between the company and its external partners in support of the company’s creation, delivery and capture of value (Santos et al., 2009; Zott et al., 2011). As far as value creation is concerned, living labs do not directly develop products or services. They serve as a link between research and citizens in a real life environment (Franz, 2014) and function as intermediaries for open innovation (Katzy, 2012). They can be considered as open innovation intermediaries (Howells, 2006; Ollila and Elmquist, 2011). Under these conditions, the identification of the value created is not obvious. The main problem with capturing value is linked to the collective nature of the innovation process, which is the product of multiple stakeholders, the main role being played by users who are often volunteers and unpaid. The fact that certain actors seek to appropriate or obtain a financial gain from part of the co-created value can potentially create tensions (Bonaccorsi et al., 2006; Chesbrough and Appleyard 2007). This research is based on the results of a questionnaire sent to nine living labs in France. It aims to identify the value created by living labs, the way in which it is remunerated and shared between the different


stakeholders. A literature review (part 1) will highlight the great fragility of the economic models of living labs The methodology that led to the development and then the analysis of the questionnaires will be explained in part 2 then the results leading to a mapping proposal will be presented in part 3. Finally, we will discuss these results and outline the follow-up that could be given to this research.

1. Living labs: weak business models Financial sustainability seems to be the essential condition for living labs to become sustainable (Veeckman et al., 2013). However Schuurman in 2015 noted a mortality rate of more than 40% in the living labs labeled by the European network of living labs, ENoLL. Through a literature review, we highlight the nature of the value generated by living labs, their sources of income and the problems that arise in terms of sharing value. 1.1.Business models in tensions between value creation and value capture Research on the business models of living labs is spread over two levels of study: the business models of the living lab structure and the business models of the projects led by the living labs (Rits et al., 2015). This research is concerned with the first level. Business model has been a concept that has attracted the attention of researchers since the 1990s (Zott et al., 2011). The majority of studies converge to assess that business models denote the company’s core logic for creating and capturing value (Saebi and Foss, 2015), the understanding of these two logics being crucial for the sustainability of the structure. The business model is not a simple representation of how an organization creates value but it is also a cognitive device (Chesbrough, 2006) through which decisions are evaluated, adopted and find economic materialization (Leroux et al., 2014). This characteristic is particularly important for open innovation where the innovation process relies on purposively managed knowledge flows across boundaries (Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014) with multiple and heterogeneous stakeholders who must succeed in producing compromises beyond their divergent interests (Leroux and Berro, 2010). Open innovation induces tensions between value creation which requires openness and value capture which requires more protective processes (Chesbrough et al., 2018). The living lab, as intermediary, is at the center of this tension. 1.2 Living labs value creation between economic benefit and social impact A living lab has multiple resources linked to its different stakeholders who all participate in the co-production of innovation, its multiple research methods and its ability to carry out tests in a real environment. All these resources allow it to create economic value by co-producing a response as close as possible to the needs of customers and users. From a market point of view, they make it possible to improve new offers and to test the market-product adequacy (Ballon et al., 2018). They thus increase the chances of success of an innovation and reduce time to market.


More generally, they are able to facilitate access to external ideas, whether commercial or scientific. Through their original and often unprecedented associations of heterogeneous stakeholders, they can be qualified as “architects of the unknown” (Agogué et al., 2013) and thus clear new ground to act in situations where technologies, markets and the involved actors are partially unknown. Moreover living labs are of particular interest to users (Baccarne et al., 2013), which is the main difference between living labs and other innovation structures and methodologies. They thus have the potential to improve user value (Almirall & Casadesus-Masanell, 2010). In this sense they also create social value through the inclusion of users in the innovation process, They thus create value for each of their stakeholders. Based on the example of a French rural living lab, Fasshauer and Zadra-Veil (2020) highlight the value produced for the main categories of stakeholders (see Table 1). Living labs thus produce environmental, social and economic effects (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al., 2009; Ståhlbröst, 2012) and strengthen social cohesion (Leminen et al., 2012, Schuurman et al., 2016). Table 1: Value creation by category of stakeholder for a rural living lab (Fasshauer and Zadra-Veil, 2020) Stakeholder Local authorities

Firms/ not for profit organizations


Value creation Dialog with citizens Territorial attractivity Economic and social impact Better risk evaluation (small scale test) Partnership Understanding of emergent needs Opportunity to contribute to products and services adapted to their own need Access to knowledge and competences Social relationship

Identifying or measuring the social value of living labs remains a problem, even if some researchers (Gualandi and Leonardi, 2018) or institutes (Institut Godin in France) are starting to develop methodologies to assess the social value which is created. Living lab often simply act as an intermediary and produce knowledge which can then be integrated into innovative products and services marketed by one or other of the stakeholders. However, traditionally knowledge is not valued as such, but its valuation is integrated into the innovative product or service. In this case, new management principles are necessary, both in terms of taking into account the value produced in revenues and the sharing of value between the stakeholders. Value creation depends also on the dominant actor in the network of the living lab. Leminen et al. (2012) so highlight four types of living labs which main properties are summarized in table 2.


Table 2: Categorization of living labs according to the driving actor (from Leminen et al., 2012; Leminen, 2013) Type of living labs Purpose





Strategic R&D activity with preset objectives

Strategydevelopment through action

Problem-solving by collaborative accomplishments

Dominant actor

Companies who launch a living lab to promote their business


New knowledge for product and business development Top-down Inhalationdominated

Public-sector actors, nongovernmental organizations, and financiers, that pursue societal improvements. Guided strategy change into a preferred direction

Operations development through increased knowledge Educational institutes, universities, or consultants.

Coordination Innovation approach

Bottom-up Exhalationdominated

New knowledge supporting operations development Top-down Exhalationdominated


Solutions to users’everyday life problems Bottom-up Inhalationdominated

Inhalation-dominated approach refers to the ability of the driving actors to enroll the network in their own innovation activities and targets (Leminen, 2013). The exhalation-dominated innovation approach meets on the contrary the needs of the other participants. The driving actor then expects indirect benefits.


Living labs revenues : a mixture of public and private funding

Funding plays a major role in the development of collaborative innovation. Most living labs depend mainly on subsidies and public aid (Brankaert et al., 2015) while others operate through project based funding (Hossain et al., 2019). While these kinds of funding are acceptable short-term option, it does not guarantee longterm sustainability. Problems often arise after initial public funding has ended (Katzy, 2012; Grezes et al., 2013; Burbridge et al., 2017). In fact, as early as 2006, the European Union identified living labs as devices allowing to increase the European innovation potential, stimulating job creation and wealth generation (Nesti, 2018). European funds were then dedicated to the priming of these structures. In general, living labs are likely to receive public subsidies for territorial economic development, research, innovation or social impact. These grants may, depending on the case, concern the structure or one or other of the projects developed by the living lab. However, public funding has evolved in recent years. Prouteau and Tchernonog (2017) thus distinguish three trends in France: - Growing privatization of funding, in particular by involving users in the funding of the service provided, - Rise of local authorities in public funding in the face of State disengagement - Decrease in subsidies in favor of the rise in power of public procurement through calls for projects or calls for expressions of interest. This trend can be compared to


an instrumentalization of associations according to the priorities defined by the public authorities (Leroy 2019, p 96). But the main risk of this funding is its temporary nature which can have the effect of launching the living labs into a headlong rush to capture funding even if it means deviating from their initial project (Fasshauer and Zadra-Veil, 2017). The sustainability of these structures therefore depends on their ability to become autonomous and generate sufficient income for the service provided (Garcia-Guzman et al., 2013; Grezes et al., 2013; Katzy, 2012; Mulvenna et al., 2010). Living labs are therefore likely to use different types of income as shown in Table 3. Table 3: Potential revenue sources for living labs Public/Private Private

Origin of funding Customer Private companies


European Union/ State/ local authorities State/ local authorities

Nature of revenues Payment for products or services Donations and sponsoring Membership fees Invoicing of annex services (workshops‌) Intellectual property, patents Grant Public order: calls for projects or expressions of interest

1.4 Capture and sharing of value: difficulties to take into account the collective character of the value created Most research on the economic models of living labs highlights the need to secure lasting collaborations (Garcia-Guzman et al., 2013, Grezes et al., 2013, Mulvenna et al., 2010, Niitamo and al., 2006) with numerous and heterogeneous actors. They are thus based on the open innovation model which, beyond the undeniable advantages in terms of acquisition of external knowledge and skills, can also generate perverse effects when some stakeholders contribute little but can take ownership of ideas. Furthermore, since ideas are shared within a large network of actors, the risk of recuperation by external actors is real. However, living labs are often not very explicit on these problems (Berthou and Picard, 2017). This can nevertheless impact the sustainability. If actors perceive that a given project has resulted in unfair value realization across contributors, they are likely to exit that project or refrain from engaging in future projects (Chesbrough et al., 2018). Traditionally, value is captured by intellectual property management but open innovation gives new status to intellectual property rights that are seen as vectors for openness that help the firms identify partners and build secure relationships (Cohendet and Penin, 2011; Ayerbe et al., 2020). But intellectual property can also in some cases bring restrictions to the exchange of knowledge (Ayerbe and Chanal, 2011). Some living labs work on usage innovations based on existing technologies. In this case, patents often prove to be unsuitable. Living labs can then be tempted to turn to open management methods of intellectual property such as "creative commons" inspired by free software. In case of collective creation of value, these


devices make it possible to identify the contribution of each partner while framing the rights of use and preserving the creation of values for the stakeholders by allowing wide dissemination. They are therefore part of a concern to contribute to the common good, in line with the desire to create social value. However, to our knowledge, there is no study on the effective use of creative commons. In addition, living labs are based on the contribution of users, who are not always paid. There is then a risk of their instrumental use. All of these issues can be addressed through the establishment of governance mechanisms.

2. Methods To study the business models of living labs, we first chose to focus on one country, France. Indeed, the importance of public funding may suggest that there are significant differences among countries. France is, with Spain, a country with the most ENoLL members (23 according to the web site as at August 2020), which is an indicator for the vitality of living labs in this country, even if many living labs do not belong to this network. In France indeed there are two competing local living lab networks: a network for Francophone living labs, which is strongly related to ENoLL Network and a network dedicated to healthcare living labs (Forum LLSA). We have developed a survey on the different dimensions of economic models identified by the literature. Our survey thus presents a mixture of open and closed questions on six headings: - Identity of the structure - Value proposition, customers and revenues - Infrastructure - Partners and governance - Role of users - Impact and sharing of value The questionnaire was sent by email to 50 living labs, identified on the websites of the living labs networks: European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and the Forum of the Health and Autonomy living labs (LLSA). Nine structures have responded to date. Their main characteristics are summarized in Table 4. In the absence of a global study and even a global database on living labs, it is impossible to decide on the representativeness of the sample. For example, health labs are very strongly represented (6 over 9). This may be linked to the fact that they are grouped into a specific network in France (forum LLSA) and therefore more easily identifiable. Thus, the responses are analyzed so as to serve as a basis for the constitution of proposals which will have to be tested in a second step.


Table 4: Short presentation of the nine living labs


Date of



creation structure


Activity sector


ENoLL membership

2012) A


















Department of University hospital Groupment around a public regional structure (groupement d’intérêt public) Foundation (related to university hospital) Department of a mutualist organization Cluster


Healthcare No (gerontechnologies)


Healthcare (Autonomy)


Healthcare Yes (gerontechnologies)


Healthcare (autonomy)


Not for profit organization (mainly created by public local actors). Not for profit organization (created by citizens) Not for profit organization (created by entrepreneurs) Cooperative (SCOP)


Healthcare No (gerontechnologies) Healthcare Yes (medicosocioeconomic innovation)




Rural development



Digital innovation



Design of new services using satellite data



3. French living labs business models

3.1. Value creation The value proposal and the innovation process is very different among the nine structures. The first difference is related to the notion of “customer�, which is not the same for all living labs. One of the living labs (A) considers that it provides research and public service work and that as such it has no customers. For the others, if the users are at the heart of the living labs project, they are not always the direct customers. Only two living labs declare having patients or individuals for clients (D and F). Otherwise their main customers are SMEs (B, C, D, E, F, G, H), large companies (B, C, E, F, G), not for profit organization (B, C, E, F, G, H) and local authorities (B, E, F, G, H), research laboratories (B, D, F, H), other public institutions (C, F, H). The living labs also declare a great diversity in their activities, even if most of them perform activities all along the innovation process (from exploration to valorization). All of them claim to have a methodology inherited from design thinking, a method of creativity centered on identifying and responding to user needs. In this context, the innovation process can be divided into five phases (Buxton, 2010): exploration, research and proposals, development and evaluation, experimentation and finalization, development and deployment. It appears that the activities of the living labs are spread over all the phases (see Table 5). Table 5: Activities declared by living labs Stage of innovation process in design thinking (Buxton, 2010)

Activity claimed by living labs


Study/ Need expression Methodological research Technical and organizational feasibility Ideation Service design Co-conception Proof of Concept Prototyping Evaluation Test in real conditions Validation PrĂŠ-industrialization Support for accessing to market Dissemination

Research and proposal

Development and evaluation Experimentation and finalization Valorisation and deployement

Living labs having spontaneously declared the activity A, C, F, G A F, G H I A, C, E, G, H D, F H C, D, E, F C, D, F, G C H E B, G

In addition to the activities listed in Table 5, seven living labs cite transversal advisory and support activities (D, E, F, G, H, I), support for public policies for B (support for innovation, access to European programs) and fundraising (H).


The means of production are often sketchy. Seven living labs have their own premises (D as owner, B, C, H and I are tenants for a fee while A and G are tenants for free). E and F operate without their own premises. Three living labs (A, D) have no employees but can rely on permanent staff from the supporting structure, G only works with volunteers, E, F, H and I declare between one and two salaried while B and C each declares ten. When there are employees, they perform commercial functions (search for partnerships), lobbying. They manage projects, contribute to research activities or to the provision of services. They are also in charge of the animation of the living lab. Technical equipment is not widespread. Only four living labs (A, C, D and H) are equipped with technical platforms, either on its own or with their partners. To characterize the creation of value, it is also interesting to identify the main objectives declared by each structure. To this question, three living labs (A, C and I) put forward research objectives, E declares exclusively economic objectives (turnover) while the other five have a mixture of social objectives (improvement of the conditions of life) and economic (allow local small and medium enterprises and artisans to develop their offer towards the target audience). In spite of having only 9 living labs in our sample, our survey proves that living labs can have very different structures and practices. The most significant findings relates to the main objectives of the living labs with three main categories of value creation: new knowledge, social value and economic value. Social and economic value almost appear on all living labs (with the exception on E) but the focus is put on one of these two dimensions (social for G and B; economic for H,D and F) or even a third one, i.e research for A, C and I. 3.2. Value remuneration The question of remuneration for value arises all the more since no living lab sells the innovative product itself. Selling the innovation is generally the responsibility of the project owner (client companies). The remuneration therefore relates either to the service offered for a particular project, or to the structure itself. In both cases, it is likely to mix public and private income as shown in Table 6. Table 6: Sources of revenues declared by living labs (number of concerned living labs) Public funding Private funding

Revenues related to the structure European grants (5) Other public grants (8) Partnership with not for profit organizations, foundations (2)

Revenues related to individual projects Public tenders (6) Invoicing of services (7)

Long term funding is necessary to ensure the sustainibility of living labs (Guzman et al., 2013). Indeed long term funding often proves to be insufficient and living labs tend to compensate by a set of solutions, which are mostly short-term fundings like the answer to public tenders or the development of an offer of service. This is time


consuming, all the more that living labs have only limited staff. Moreover public tenders are not always in adequation with the initial goals of the living labs. 3.3. Value sharing Living labs have multiple stakeholders. All of them have companies and users among their partners. The majority is linked to local authorities, associations, hospitals and public institutions. Each living lab has partners in at least three different categories. None of the living labs remunerate users. The sharing of value therefore has no monetary character for this audience. If D declares that it did not start any particular reflection on the sharing of value, the others consider that it is a problem without having found a satisfactory solution. One living lab protects certain innovations by patents or copyrights which in this case are carried by its affiliated entities. A second one uses Creative Commons licenses where possible and a third one systematically promotes open source. The others have no protection processes but have a specific concern for facilitating a large dissemination of the projects or the sharing of knowledge, skills or good practices. Globally, the focus is more on value sharing than on value capture. The value sharing is often claimed as one of the main targets of the living labs, either restricted to the members of the living lab or fully open. 3.4 Governance and inclusion of users Seven living labs have a board of directors and only two do not have any specific governance structure. When there is a board of directors, it contributes to the definition of the strategy in connection with the management of the living lab and the parent structures. Four living labs (A, G, H and I) claim to include all members to participate into the definition of the strategy. If only two living labs have set up a formal selection committee, six living labs have a project selection procedure based on defined criteria such as: - Their suitability for the purpose of the living lab - Their scientific interest - The expected benefits for users - Feasibility (in financial or skills terms). Users participate at all levels of the innovation process: ideation (A, B, E, F, G, H, I), prototyping (A, B, C, E, F, G, I) and test (A, B, C, D, E, F, G,H, I). User involvement in projects seems logically to be a common practice but only some living labs include them in the governance of the structure. A kind of democratic governance (openness to all members) appears on four living labs out of nine. 3.5 Categorization proposal Although the sample is quite small, this exploratory research allows us to propose a first categorization of living labs according to the main characteristics of their business model. This proposal is shown in Table 7.


Table 7 : Categorization proposal

Living lab type

Research oriented

Social innovation oriented B, G

Local network oriented

Business oriented

Categorization of the studied living labs Nature of generated value

A, C, I

D, F, H


Knowledge creation

Primary social value, secondary economic value

Economic Value

Dissemination + protective processes


Primary economic value, secondary social value Sharing of knowledge or skills within the network

Value capture or sharing

No formal process

There seems to be a strong relationship between the nature of the created value and the value capture or sharing. The other dimensions (revenues, governance) seem on the contrary to be independent and not related to the type of living lab. Although the sample is relatively small, it shows a variety of practices.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This exploratory research contributes both to living labs and to open innovation literature. As regards living labs literature, it proposes a description and a categorization of living labs business models. We identify four different forms of living labs depending on the nature of the creation of value: knowledge creation, social innovation, local network, and business oriented. These four categories rely on two interrelated dimensions: value creation and value sharing. We identify three categories of value creation: knowledge creation, social value creation and business value. In fact the three different natures of value creation are almost always present in the different living labs but the main goals of the living lab is more focused on one or the other component. At this stage of the research there seems to be a relation between value creation and value sharing. Research oriented living labs have the most elaborated processes to protect value. For the other ones, there is a concern for taking into account the collective nature of the created value but they hardly find ways to formalize it. They nevertheless try to ensure a large dissemination of the innovation when it brings social value and to share within the network the knowledge created during the innovation process. With few exceptions, the revenues are a mixture of public and private funding independently of the type of living lab. They seem to respond to opportunities rather than to deliberate strategies as we did not find any correlation between funding and type of living lab. Due to the numerous stakeholders, governance is collective but in some cases there is in addition a concern for creating the conditions of a democratic governance, also independently of the nature of the living lab. Governance is in fact


what the living lab will use to make choices on the creation and on the sharing of value by taking into account the variety of its stakeholders, including the user. The proposed categorization completes the one proposed by Leminen et al. (2012) and Leminen (2013) with the nature of the creation of value and the sharing of the value. Providers-driven living labs appear to deliver mainly knowledge and are the only ones to use intellectual property protections, probably because they are used to such processes in their main activities. Utilizer-driven living labs have either an exclusively economic finality or a mix of economic and social value with a focus on economic value. There is no use of intellectual property protection but, when there are social targets they are concern by sharing knowledge inside the network. Our sample only had one example of user-driven living lab with a focus on social value and a concern for disseminating the produced innovation to a large scale. The two enabler-driven living labs of our sample aim a mix of social and economic value but the focus can be either on social value or on economic value. It confirms that not only the outcomes of innovation are linked with the characteristics of the living lab (Leminen et al., 2017) but also the value sharing of the innovation. Nevertheless our research does not confirm the results of Leminen 2013 regarding the dominant coordination (bottom-up or top-down). The governance of living labs also includes lateral coordinations that are not taken into account by Leminen (2013). For this item the categorization made by Dell’Era and Landoni (2014) with open- and closed governance is more consistent with the particularity of living labs, even if our research does not evidence a relation between governance and value sharing mechanisms. A trend to more open and democratic governance is outlined by Habib et al. (2015) in their definition of third-generation living labs defined as “platforms with shared resources, which organize their stakeholders into a collaboration network, that relies on representative governance, participation, open standards and diverse activities and methods to gather, create, communicate and deliver new knowledge, validated solutions, professional development and social impact in real-life contexts”. This research also contributes to open innovation literature which is dominantly focused on business models developed by industrial firms. The open innovation literature clearly calls for more research involving an organizational level of analysis, explicitely referring to the organizational designs and practices that underlie openness (Ayerbe et al., 2020). Chesbrough and Bogers (2014) already extended the concept to public and not for profit organizations. We here focus on open business models for open innovation intermediaries and thus for the service innovation. Living labs present a new form of structure being able to “organize for open innovation” (West and Bogers, 2014). The success of open business models is defined by aligning value creation and capture activities to an innovation (Chesbrough, 2003; Zott and Amitt, 2011). This research shows that in living labs there is no mandatory alignment between value creation and capture mechanisms. Globally, the focus is more on value sharing than on value capture. The value sharing is often claimed as one of the main targets of the living labs, either restricted to the members of the living lab or fully open. Sharing the value is thus one strategy to manage the openness paradox. This “strategy” is nevertheless not formalized, which may be due to the emergent property of living labs. This is thus made possible only as long as there is trust between the stakeholders and fairness and transparency in the decision process


which allows the emergence of case by case solutions but raise the problem of sustainability. This research is mainly limited due to the small sample and the fact that it is concentrated on only one country. It is also limited due to the use of the survey methodology which does not allow to understand the detail of the governance, the motivations of the diverse stakeholders and the value sharing mechanisms. This would be important to add deeper interviews with a variety of stakeholder for each living lab. An international comparison could also be useful to highlight the country specificities, especially as regards the sources of revenues.

References Agogué, M., Comtet, G., Menudet, J. F., Picard, R., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Managing innovative design within the health ecosystem: the living lab as an architect of the unknown. Management et Avenir Sante, (1), 17-32. Almirall, E., & Casadesus-Masanell, R. (2010). Open versus closed innovation: A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of management review, 35(1), 27-47. Ayerbe, C., & Chanal, V. (2011). Quel management des DPI dans les business models ouverts?. Revue française de gestion, (1), 99-115. Ayerbe, C., Dubouloz, S., Mignon, S., & Robert, M. (2020). Management Innovation and Open Innovation: For and Towards Dialogue. Journal of Innovation Economics Management, (2), 13-41. Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Veeckman, C., & Schuurman, D. (2013). Why collaborate in longterm innovation research? An exploration of user motivations in Living Labs. In 4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013. European Network of Living Labs. Ballon, P., & Schuurman, D. (2015). Living labs: concepts, tools and cases. info, 17(4). Ballon, P., Van Hoed, M., & Schuurman, D. (2018). The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs. Telematics and Informatics, 35(5), 1201-1214. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 356-370. Berthou, V., & Picard, R. (2017). Les Living Labs, ces leviers d’innovation en santé publique. In Annales des Mines-Realites industrielles (No. 2, pp. 68-72). Bonaccorsi, A., Giannangeli, S., & Rossi, C. (2006). Entry strategies under competing standards: Hybrid business models in the open source software industry. Management science, 52(7), 1085-1098. Burbridge, M., Morrison, G. M., van Rijn, M., Silvester, S., Keyson, D. V., Virdee, L., ... & Liedtke, C. (2017). Business models for sustainability in living labs. In Living labs (pp. 391403). Springer, Cham. Buxton, B. (2010). Sketching user experiences: getting the design right and the right design. Morgan kaufmann. Brankaert, R., Ouden, E. D., & Brombacher, A. (2015). Innovate dementia: the development of a living lab protocol to evaluate interventions in context. info, 17(4), 40-52. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California management review, 45(3), 33-58. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm, 400, 0-19.


Chesbrough, H. W., & Appleyard, M. M. (2007). Open innovation and strategy. California management review, 50(1), 57-76. Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Forthcoming, 3-28. Chesbrough, H., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value capture in open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930-938. Cohendet, P., & Pénin, J. (2011). Patents to exclude vs. include: Rethinking the management of intellectual property rights in a knowledge-based economy. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(3). Edwards-Schachter, M. E., Matti, C. E., & Alcántara, E. (2012). Fostering quality of life through social innovation: A living lab methodology study case. Review of Policy Research, 29(6), 672-692. Fasshauer, I., & Zadra-Veil, C. (2017). Crowdsourcing public et innovation territoriale: le cas d'un living lab rural. Politique et Management Public, 34 (1-2) : 61-82. Fasshauer, I., & Zadra-Veil, C. (2020). Le living lab, un intermédiaire d’innovation ouverte pour les territoires ruraux ou péri-urbains?. Innovations, 61 (1) : 15-40 Franz, Y. (2014, September). Chances and Challenges for Social Urban Living Labs in Urban Research. In Conference Proceedings of Open Living Lab Days (pp. 105-114). García-Guzmán, J., del Carpio, A. F., De Amescua, A., & Velasco, M. (2013). A process reference model for managing living labs for ICT innovation: A proposal based on ISO/IEC 15504. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 36(1), 33-41. Grezes V., Fulgencio H., Perruchoud A. (2013), Embedding Business Model for Sustainable Collaborative Innovation in African Living Labs, IST-Africa Conference & Exhibition, IEEE Gualandi, E., & Leonardi, L. (2018). Models for Living Lab’s Sustainability. Evidences from Italy and the Netherlands. Paper presented at the OLLD18 – Open Living Labs Days Research and Innovation Conference, August 22–24, 2018, Geneva, Switzerland. Guzmán, J. G., del Carpio, A. F., Colomo-Palacios, R., & de Diego, M. V. (2013). Living labs for user-driven innovation: a process reference model. Research-Technology Management, 56(3), 29-39. Habib, C., Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. 2015. Living Labs as Innovation Platforms. Paper presented at the 6th ENoLL Living Labs Summer School, August 25–28, 2015, Istanbul, Turkey. Hillgren, P. A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. CoDesign, 7(3-4), 169-183. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of cleaner production, 213, 976-988. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research policy, 35(5), 715-728. Katzy, B. (2012). Designing viable business models for living labs. Technology innovation management review, 2(9). Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. G. (2012). Living Labs as open-innovation networks. Leminen, S. (2013). Coordination and participation in living lab networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(11). Leminen, S., Rajahonka, M., & Westerlund, M. (2017). Towards third-generation living lab networks in cities. Talent First Network Leroux, I., & Berro, A. (2010). Négociation public/privé et coévolution stratégique dans un biocluster. M@ n@ gement, 13(1), 38-69. Leroux, I., Muller, P., Plottu, B., & Widehem, C. (2014). Innovation ouverte et évolution des business models dans les pôles de compétitivité: le rôle des intermédiaires dans la création variétale végétale. Revue d'économie industrielle, (146), 115-151. Leroy, A. (2019). Economie politique des associations, de Boeck Supérieur


Mulvenna, M., Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Wallace, J., Galbraith, B., & Martin, S. (2010, October). Living labs as engagement models for innovation. In eChallenges e-2010 Conference (pp. 111). IEEE. Nesti, G. (2018). Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experience. Policy and Society, 37(3), 310-325. Niitamo, V. P., Kulkki, S., Eriksson, M., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006, June). State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs. In 2006 IEEE international technology management conference (ICE) (pp. 1-8). IEEE. Ollila, S., & Elmquist, M. (2011). Managing open innovation: Exploring challenges at the interfaces of an open innovation arena. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 273283. Prouteau, L., & Tchernonog, V. (2017). Evolutions et transformations des financements publics des associations. Revue francaise d'administration publique, (3), 531-542. Rits, O., Schuurman, D., & Ballon, P. (2015). Exploring the benefits of integrating business model research within living lab projects. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(12), 19-27. Saebi, T., & Foss, N. J. (2015). Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions. European Management Journal, 33(3), 201-213. Santos, J., Spector, B., & Van der Heyden, L. (2009). Toward a theory of business model innovation within incumbent firms. INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. Schuurman, D. (2015). Bridging the gap between Open and User Innovation?: exploring the value of Living Labs as a means to structure user contribution and manage distributed innovation (Doctoral dissertation, Ghent University). Schuurman, D., Baccarne, B., De Marez, L., & Mechant, P. (2012). Smart ideas for smart cities: investigating crowdsourcing for generating and selecting ideas for ICT innovation in a city context. Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, 7(3), 49-62. Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2016). The impact of living lab methodology on open innovation contributions and outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6(1). Ståhlbröst, A. (2012). A set of key-principles to assess the impact of living labs. International Journal of Product Development, 17(1-2), 60-75. Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking living lab characteristics and their outcomes: Towards a conceptual framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12). West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: a review of research on open innovation. Journal of product innovation management, 31(4), 814-831. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042.


Research in Progress paper

Observational study on cross-cultural differences in living lab research: protocol & pilot Authors Nele A.J. De Wittea,b, Ingrid Adriaensena, Leen Broeckxa, Vicky Van Der Auweraa, Sascha Vermeylena, Thais L.P. Vieirac , & Tom Van Daeleb a

LiCalab, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Geel, Belgium Expertise Unit Psychology, Technology & Society, Thomas More University of Applied Sciences, Antwerp, Belgium c Universidade Federal do EspĂ­rito Santo, VitĂłria, Brazil


Abstract When a new service or product is introduced, local context always has to be taken into consideration, as requirements and preferences might vary across regions. Similarly, the concrete set-up of living lab research might vary depending on where and with whom it takes place. Previous research suggests that cultural characteristics and individual differences in behaviour could influence data collection and be confounding variables for study outcomes of international living lab research. However, this research is predominantly based on indirect reports. The current study aims to collect data on actual participation and contribution in international user-centred research and explore its relation to individual characteristics and geographical region. Participating living labs are asked to perform observations of living lab sessions and invite participants to complete an end-user questionnaire. A Belgian pilot shows that the protocol is feasible and can detect relevant differences in contribution based on age and professional status. Further recruitment has been hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic but will continue when guidelines permit the organisation of group sessions. The current study can increase awareness of cross-cultural differences in living lab research. It will allow participating living labs and the broader living lab community to optimize national and international research protocols so that they uphold good standardisation and reproducibility but also entail sufficient flexibility to account for cross-cultural differences.


Key words: Cross-border research, group dynamics, recruitment, living labs, individual differences

Introduction The global increase in living lab research facilitates international user-centred research that can generate relevant insights for the implementation of innovations within specific regions or across borders (Ballon et al., 2018; Mulder and Stappers, 2009). The region in which services and products are introduced can have an impact on the requirements of the innovation, but also on the execution of the living lab research. Cultural characteristics and individual differences in behaviour could influence data collection and confound study outcomes. Therefore, regional differences should be taken into account in study design in order to obtain reliable results that are representative of all individuals in a session and the population of interest as a whole. Living lab research often relies on group sessions (e.g., co-creation/co-designing sessions, focus groups). Group interactions can provide insight into diverging and converging opinions, but the social context or presence of group members could also inadvertently influence contributions and outcomes (Greenwood et al., 2014; Liamputtong, 2011). Survey data suggests that female participants contribute more to group sessions in certain countries, although this can be hampered by the presence of men (De Witte et al., 2019). Differences in contribution between group members in relation to age have also been reported in several regions (De Witte et al., 2019; Halcomb, Gholizadeh, Digiacomo, Phillips, & Davidson, 2007; Xie et al., 2012). Organisations from the living lab community have further reported that professionals contribute more to such sessions compared to patients, and individuals with high socio-economic status (SES) are more likely to participate and contribute more strongly as well (De Witte et al. 2019). Other factors that might influence participation and contribution to living lab sessions are ethnicity (De Witte et al., 2019, Im et al., 2004; Greenwood et al., 2014) and language (De Witte et al., 2019; Halcomb et al., 2007; Huer & Saenz, 2003). These findings on individual and regional differences are mostly based on theory or subjective reports of living lab researchers and should ideally be corroborated by direct and observational data. Self-report by living lab participants is also relevant, especially for factors that can be harder to observe, such as SES and which ethnic group individuals identify with. Therefore, the current study aims to collect data on actual participation and contribution in international user-centred research and their relation to individual characteristics and geographical region. This study specifically intends to map how participants behave in group sessions based on gender, age,


SES, and professional background, what motivates participation, and how sessions are being moderated. Based on previous research, multiple hypotheses can be formulated. End-user participation is hypothesized to be mainly intrinsically motivated, although reimbursement might also be important in Asia and the Americas. Contribution in the sessions is generally expected to be higher in women as compared to men and professionals as compared to end users or patients. However, regional differences can occur. Austria, Germany and the UK have for example previously reported a higher contribution of males relative to females (De Witte et al., 2019). The influence of age on contribution appears to show an irregular pattern across countries so no specific hypotheses could be articulated. There is also a lack of research on the influence of SES and ethnicity on living lab sessions. The survey study showed regional differences in whether a facilitating attitude (common in The UK, Netherlands, Germany, Colombia, Switzerland, Mexico, and India) or more authoritative stance (common in Taiwan, Italy, Turkey, and Ireland) was required from the moderator (De Witte et al., 2019). We hypothesize that the current study will reproduce these findings.

Methods Recruitment Organisations performing living lab research are invited to participate in the observational study through personally addressed e-mails, social media, and through open calls in networks, including the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Participating living labs are asked to observe two to three group sessions (preferably focus groups but other sessions, e.g. co-creation, can also be included), with the goal of including about 20 participants per living lab. Living labs should not organize sessions specifically for the current study but perform additional observations of sessions that are already scheduled. There are no restrictions with regard to the topic of the session. The only inclusion criterion for participants is that they need to be over 18 years old. Participating living labs further invite the end users of these sessions to complete a brief questionnaire. As an incentive for participation, living labs can receive a report of the sample of end users from their living lab, containing aggregated self-report data on reasons for participation, preferred rewards, and which factors can influence contribution to sessions (e.g., group size, gender of other participants). The study was approved by the ethical committee of Thomas More University of Applied Sciences. All participants of the sessions will be asked to sign an informed consent. Recruitment started in February 2020 but was paused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. International guidelines advised against organizing group sessions in this period.


Observational checklist Based on the input from the cross-cultural survey study (De Witte et al., 2019), an observational checklist was designed. Observers are asked to describe the group and the moderator (e.g., based on age, gender, and ethnicity) and report any difference in contribution that coincided with these individual differences in the current session. Additionally, they report on the activities, group atmosphere, and overall attitudes and behaviour of participants and moderators. The checklist consists predominantly of multiple choice and scale questions and can be completed online through the Qualtrics platform. Completing the checklist takes about 15 minutes. End-user questionnaire Based on the input from the cross-cultural survey study (De Witte et al. 2019), a questionnaire was designed to assess participation in and preferences for group sessions of end users. Participants are asked about their motivation for participation and how actively they generally contribute to group sessions, depending on the characteristics of the group. They also complete some demographics, with SES measured based on the MacArthur SES ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000). The questionnaire consists of multiple-choice questions (with the possibility to elaborate on answers) and can be completed online on the Qualtrics platform or in a pen-and-paper version. The questionnaire is currently available in English, Dutch, and French. In consultation with the local living lab, other translations can be designed. Completing the questionnaire takes about 15 minutes. Procedure Living labs that indicate interest in participation are asked to select a suitable planned session. The researcher of the living lab is asked to read through the observational checklist to get a better understanding of which behaviours and interactions they should pay attention to when performing the observations. This individual will subsequently observe the session and complete the observational checklist online. This observer should not be the main moderator of the session. The participating end users will be informed about the current study before the start of the session and provide informed consent. They will take part in the session as planned but will be provided with the end-user questionnaire afterwards. This procedure can be repeated in other group sessions until a sufficient amount of end users has been reached. Analyses Frequency analyses will be used to compare the responses of different regions. Additionally, thematic qualitative analyses will be used to gain more in-depth insight into cross-cultural differences.


Results To assess the feasibility of the protocol, a Belgian pilot study was set up. This pilot session consisted of a group session with nine Caucasian female individuals, i.e., eight home carers and one home care student working in the same organisation, who received a non-monetary material reward for their participation. The end-user questionnaire showed that all participants were motivated to participate for being appreciated or learning new things (N = 9), other common motivators consisted of being able to help others or the society (N = 7) and being interested in the topic or innovation (N = 5). The session included young adults (18-35 years old; N = 3), middle-aged adults (35-55 years old; N = 3), and older adults (>55 years old; N = 3). Observations showed that older participants contributed more to the session than their younger counterparts did. Professional status also influenced contribution, as evidenced by a relatively lower contribution of the student as compared to staff members. However, group size was relevant in this respect since this difference was less pronounced in the discussions in smaller groups. The participants were direct and polite in their contributions. This was reported by the participants themselves in the end-user questionnaire but even more so by the observer. Two female panel managers moderated the session in a facilitating stance (as reported by both the observer and participants). The pilot showed that it was feasible to complete the observational checklist and end-user questionnaire. However, some questions were perceived to be ambiguous for the responders and were further clarified and altered. Although recruitment had started in February 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic lead to the cancellation of group sessions so no further data could be collected before the submission deadline of the Digital Living Lab Days 2020. Recruitment will be initiated again once physical distancing guidelines permit for the organisation of group sessions across Europe (and beyond).

Conclusion The current study aims to improve our understanding of regional differences in group dynamics and end-user preferences. While the previous cross-cultural survey study already hinted to regional differences in end-user participation, the current study will provide more direct observational and self-report data on differences between and preferences of end users in different international regions. The pilot showed that the protocol is feasible, and it is not too time consuming to add the session observation and end-user questionnaire to an already scheduled group session. In line with previous research (De Witte et al., 2019; Halcomb et al., 2007), older individuals were more active in the pilot and professional status appeared to influence contribution.


The results of the current study will provide an overview of which individual differences influence participation in different regions. This information is valuable input when designing cross-border living lab studies. While the content of the sessions of an international study should be the same across sessions and regions to achieve comparable and reproducible results, the context and moderation of a session can vary. Some regions might for example benefit from organizing multiple group sessions based on age or gender. Other regions might require a more authoritative or facilitating style of the moderator. Certain topics, for example more sensitive subjects such as ethnicity itself (Greenwood et al., 2014), will warrant extra care in selecting participants for group sessions to create an atmosphere which invites open and honest contribution. The current study can increase awareness of cross-cultural differences in living lab research. It will allow participating living labs and the broader living lab community to optimize national and international research protocols so that they uphold good standardisation and reproducibility but also entail sufficient flexibility to account for cross-cultural differences. Recruitment for the study is still ongoing so we would like to invite all living labs that are interested in participation to contact the corresponding author via


References Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. Ballon, P., Van Hoed, M., & Schuurman, D. (2018). The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: Measuring the impact of living labs. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 1201-1214. De Witte, N. A. J., Adriaensen, I., Broeckx, L., Van Der Auwera, V., & Van Daele T (2019). Cross-cultural differences in living lab research. Paper presented at the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) Open Living Lab Days 2019, Greece Thessaloniki. Greenwood, N., Ellmers, T., & Holley, J. (2014). The influence of ethnic group composition on focus group discussions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 1–13. Halcomb, E. J., Gholizadeh, L., Digiacomo, M., Phillips, J., & Davidson, P. M. (2007). Literature review : considerations in undertaking focus group research with culturally and linguistically








1000-1011. Huer, M. B., & Saenz, T.I. (2003) Challenges and strategies for conducting survey and focus group research with culturally diverse groups. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 12, 209–220. Im, E., Page, R., Lin, L., Tsai, H., & Cheng, C. (2004). Rigor in cross-cultural nursing research. International






891–899. Mulder, I., & Stappers, P. J. (2009). Co-creating in Practice: Results and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of Concurrent Enterprising: ICE 2009 (pp. 1–8). Leiden, The Netherlands: Centre for Concurrent Enterprise: Nottingham, UK.


Research in Progress paper

Methodology for Establishing a Living Lab from Experiences in Japan Authors Keiichi KITAZUME, Mari TAKAKU, Mio NISHIYAMA and Yusuke OKAMURA

Abstract The purpose of this study is to clarify which method is suitable for the features of Japan, especially when starting a LL activity with a specific topic in a certain area. The viewpoints are put together, utilization of the residents' association, engagement between citizens and their local government and creating a place for active discussions. By researching Japanese experiences from these viewpoints, a careful relationship between residents and the operating organization and a management method removing the stereotype about residents are suggested as the key points to success.

Key words: Living Labs in Japan, customization, residents’ association, toolkit


1. Introduction A Living lab is an effective system to create innovative solutions while engaging different stakeholders such as companies, a (local) government, citizens and a university and, in particular, this system as an initiative of residents is spreading to the world. On the other hand, it has become clear that a Living Lab will not effectively work unless it adopts processes and methods that take into account the features and capabilities of the citizens of each country. There are various types of the Living Labs in Japan, and while using the method that has been developed mainly in Europe, we have been aiming to customize the suitable method to Japan. Therefore, we launch the Japanese version of the Living Lab Toolkit Project, and aim to develop methodologies of it. The purpose of this study is to clarify which method is suitable for the features of Japan, especially when starting a Living Lab activity with a specific topic in a certain area.

2. Exiting Literatures McCormick and Hartmann (2020) identify geographical embeddedness as one of key characteristics of the Urban Living Labs which have regional features respectively. Furthermore, they also identify 3 configurations such as strategic, civic and grassroots. Especially, grassroots Urban Living Labs are led by urban actors in civil society or not for profit actors. Also, as mentioned in any documents about Living Labs, for example, the Living Lab Methodology Handbook (2017) argues that there is no single methodology, but all Living Labs combine and customize different user-centred co-creation methodologies to best fit their purpose. The key to success in any activity is to involve the users at the beginning of the process. Cho (2018) introduces the case of Seoul of South Korea and Shanghai of China on how to interact with the community when developing a Living Lab. It shows that each Living Lab has a different structure, and describes the process by which citizens who were not initially interested in the project gradually become more actively involved during the project's start-up period. Giorgia (2018) seeks a co-production approach connecting between local authorities and citizens by analyzing three experiences of Urban Living Lab projects in Amsterdam, Boston and Turin. The research shows that innovative solutions to local problems has been encouraging municipalities to create urban laboratories where citizens are involved in experimenting new products or services through a coproduction approach.


Timo et. al. (2019) shows three processes of diffusion between an Urban Living Lab and its socio-spatial contexts. They are embedding, scaling and translating. We need to focus not only on the individuality of the region, but also on sharing it with other regions. ProVaHealth (2019) states that among the Living Lab evaluation indicators, the openness and atmosphere of a Living Lab that facilitates discussion are important for creating good ideas.

3. Experiences in Japan In 2018, we joined the Open Lab Day with Linnaeus university in Kamakura, one of cities of Japan. Its theme was like “How might we treat/overcome the loneliness in our retired lives,” and some elderlies were joining as participants. That was a very good experience for us to notice that Living Lab can work effectively also in Japan. Before that, we felt this kind of approach (workshop) doesn't match well for Japanese people, especially for elderlies, because many of us, Japanese tends to be very shy, being not good at speak and discuss openly. However, at the Open Lab Day, the workshop proceeded very smoothly, with all the participants being very positive and we found several insights from good discussions. After that, we tried several Living Labs in Japan by ourselves. From those experiences and comparison between them and the Open Lab day, we can take a look two issues about executing Living Labs. The one issue is how can we design and facilitate the workshops in Living Labs. At the Open Lab day, some gimmicks and frameworks to promote conversations were introduced. Because of them, we could enjoy our discussions positively, and could organize our feelings and thinking to get insights with joy. We also found that one older man aged 92, who rarely speak at the beginning became lively, much speaking at the end. On the other hand, we are struggling to reproduce such a good experience to our Living Labs. Because we have few experiences for any group activities and open discussions in our company days, school days so far, it's a little difficult to introduce participants to speak about their episodes lively, visualize insights using Post-Its with joy even if we try some games and frameworks. Also, we know we should design different types of workshops depend on the purpose, phase, and groups of participants of the Living Lab. At here, we feel it is necessary for us learn how to design and facilitate well for each situation, by experiencing many other workshops using many tools and frameworks, and practicing. Another issue to promote Living Lab is, how can we brew the collaborative mindset within us. There still be a kind of stereotype of "residents are just users, who have no ideas and insights" within many people, even in some residents’ sides. This stereotype often causes misunderstandings of executives about Living Labs, and make its trial to just a user tests or usability evaluation, which has no essential


collaboration. To get essential values of Living Labs and achieve sustainable social ecosystem, we have to remove this kind of stereotype and penetrate collaborative mindset in which all stakeholders will equally discuss about the theme with responsibilities at their roll of Living Lab. For this, we need to organize which roll should each stakeholder has and ensure understanding what collaboration Living Labs should achieve from successful projects in Living Lab-advanced countries.

4. A Tool for Community/People Participation at the Time of Launching a Living Lab These experiences require the careful process design and tools to encourage active discussions and collaborative mindset when preparing to launch a Living Lab especially in Japan. Generally, themes of Living Lab are proposed by one of the universities, a local government, a company, and not by the residents and not yet been involved, the Living Lab preparation team will need to approach to a community and make residents to participate to a new Living lab. We have started a project of Japanese version of the Living Lab Toolkit and are aiming to provide a well thought out, practiced and effective method for the involvement of residents in the Living Lab as various toolkits of the Japanese version of Toolkit based on the experiences in Japan. The following is an example of the process of community(residents) participation at the time of launching the Japanese Living Lab, which is being accumulated by the project team. (i) Looking for a residents’ association First, the local government/city will make a long list of some candidates that are suitable for launching a Living Lab with good composition of residents and following conditions according to the theme. (1) There is a residents’ association organization. Many Japanese are accustomed to working and discussing in groups at the organization. The size of the organization that launched a Living Lab is 2.000 to 3.000 households or 5.000 to 6.500 people. (2) There is a good relationship between residents’ association executives and the local government. (3) There must be a meeting place where a Living Lab can be held in the area. (4) There are communication networks between members within the residents’ association, such as a circular board system, poster display places and so on. Even though many residents’ associations have homepages, they are limited to one-way information transmission tools and do not have functions for reading confirmation and application for participation yet. In addition, since many elderlies cannot yet use any digital tool, information by such as circular boards and posters must be provided on a communication network that can approach


all residents in addition to utilizing a convenient website. Even though it is convenient to post and recruiting members only through the website, especially when approaching residents from the local government, the methods that are well known to all residents are recommended for obtaining cooperation and understanding of the residents’ association. (5) The resident composition and living environment are in line with the theme of the Living Lab. (ii) From the long list to a short list To reduce the number of candidates of residents’ association, following steps are necessary. - List a few regional candidates that meet the conditions. - Approach the candidates of residents’ association from the local government. - The local government that is the Living Lab preparation team explains the theme to the board of residents’ association which operates it. - Approach the executives of the residents’ association to explain the theme of the Living Lab, and see if they are cooperative and interested in it. - Make sure that the residents’ association is not operating on a tight schedule and has enough room to continue Living Lab activities. In the case that the residents’ association is active, in other word busy, the member is good at communicating information and recruiting participants. But it may not be sustainable. - Select one residents’ association if some candidates remain. (iii) Introducing the Living Lab to the community - Make a plan of a pre-explanatory session for the residents’ association. - Prepare briefing notice circulars and posters at the local government and the university. - Inform of the pre-explanatory session to residents from the residents’ association in a way that can approach to the all residents (i.e. circulation of paper materials, posting of posters, and posting on the website). - Hold a briefing session for residents such as mini lectures about a Living Lab. - Conduct a questionnaire survey to the participants at the information session. - In a questionnaire, the Living Lab preparation team will get personal information and ask a permission to contact them from now on. - Information about general attributes and the theme of Living Lab will be used to help build participant structure that suits each purpose of a Living Lab. But if questions in detail are judged to be premature at that time, the person profile will be enhanced through additional questionnaires and staff interviews at subsequent workshops. For example, in the case of heat stroke countermeasures, a questionnaire is conducted to understand the person profiles that can configure participants with different attributes according to their needs, such as the status of air conditioning at home, the degree of information collection, and the degree of practice of measures. - Create a list of residents that can be approached in a form that allows the person profile to be understood. The person profile and list are managed while being added and updated.


- Hold a workshops in units of 10 to several tens of people to better understand personal attributes and personality of residents and updated profiles. - Keep a list of residents with their personal attributes, personality and the possibility of participation. At the time of holding a living lab, depending on the theme and the content of the discussion, there are cases where the same person continues to participate or where the member is replaced little by little. (iv) Formation of management organization on the part of residents. - Initially, the local government and others will make substantial preparations and hold briefings, workshops, seminars etc. in the form of gathering residents through the local government organization. - Once the executives of a residents' association have become positive about the establishment of the Living Lab and they have reached a consensus, the Living Lab preparation team will start consulting with the residents’ association on the formation of the Living Lab management organization on the resident side. - The executives of residents’ association will change their positions for 1-2 years. At the timing of the change, it is necessary to have an organization dedicated to be the representative of the residents of Living Lab together with the transfer between the old and new executives of residents' association. Consult with some of former residents’ association to create a Living Lab management organization for residents. (v) Resident information management and updating to participate in Living Labs - Once the Living Lab management organization on the resident side is established, the management of the resident list will be transferred or shared from the local government to the resident side.

5. Concluding Remarks In order to achieve creative solutions in Living Labs in Japan, it is necessary that customization matching the Japanese features as follows; (1) Creating a place for active discussions by Japanese people who are not always accustomed to expressing their opinions freely (2) Utilization of methodology that involves a wide range of citizens through the residents' association (3) Development of management methods that meet diverse relationships between citizens and their local government The good management method of a Living Lab should remove the stereotype of "residents are just users, who have no ideas and insights” and penetrate collaborative mindset in which all stakeholders will equally discuss about the theme with responsibilities. Therefore, a Living Lab needs to be started while building a careful relationship between residents and the operating organization using the residents' association.


References Cho, E. J.: Transforming a Neighborhood into a Living Laboratory for Urban Social Innovation: A Comparative Case Study of Urban Living Labs, International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design, Cross-Cultural Design. Applications in Cultural Heritage, Creativity and Social Development, pp.275-285, 2018. Giorgia Nesti: Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experience, POLICY AND SOCIETY, Vol. 37, No.3, pp. 310-325, 2018. McCormick, K., Hartmann, C. (eds.) The Emerging Landscape of Urban Living Labs: Characteristics, Practices and Examples (2017). 276/Urban_Living_Labs_Handbook.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2020 ProVaHealth: Product Validation in Health, Living Lab concept: review of good practices of health Living Labs, Tallinn University, 2019. Timo von Wirth, Lea Fuenfschilling, Niki Frantzeskaki and Lars Coenen: Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation, European Planning Studies, Vol. 27, No.2, pp.229-257, 2019. U1IoT: Living Lab Methodology Handbook, 2017.


Research in Progress paper

Facilitation and facilitator roles in the lab-driven innovation process in experience-based tourism Author Yati Nord University Business School – Bodø, Norway

Abstract This study expects to contribute to the knowledge of lab-driven innovation process by exploring the critical factors of facilitation and facilitator roles of labs in experiencebased tourism. The preliminary findings of this qualitative case study show that labs may have the potential to stimulate systematic innovation in experience-based tourism firms. Also, the facilitator roles of the labs in tourism are similar to the roles of innovation intermediaries in other sectors. Moreover, the study tentatively concludes that engagement and active involvement of the participants is important in the facilitation of the labs.

Key words: experience-based tourism, innovation process, innovation facilitator, innovation intermediaries, innovation labs, living labs


1. Introduction Innovation is the key to gain competitive advantage and thus vital for the survival and growth of tourism firms (Hjalager, 2010), especially in the recent global Covid-19 pandemic situation. However, some authors consider that tourism firms have low innovative level, with rather limited, incremental, and less systematic innovation activities due to the mostly small and micro sizes of the firms (Borodako et al., 2014, Gomezelj, 2016, Rønningen, 2010, Lapointe et al., 2015, Ronningen and Lien, 2014, Najda-Janoszka and Kopera, 2014). Some studies show that micro and small tourism firms are more innovative if they are involved in collaboration with other industries (Borodako et al., 2014, Novelli et al., 2006). Thus, there is a need for facilitation or mediation that enables collaboration among the tourism stakeholders, in an environment that stimulates innovation (NajdaJanoszka, 2013), such as a laboratory or lab. Lab concepts, such as innovation labs and living labs, have been extensively used for innovation in other sectors (Fuzi et al., 2018). Nevertheless, the use of labs for innovation is still seldom discussed in the tourism sector, particularly regarding the facilitation of the labs. Therefore this paper aims to answer the following research question: How lab-driven innovation processes are facilitated in the experience-based tourism sector and what are the roles of the facilitators?

2. Theoretical background 2.1. Innovation in tourism There are two innovation modes: the Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) mode, which is usually developed in R&D (Research and Development) laboratories; and the Doing, Using, and Interacting (DUI) mode, which is gained through individual interactions within and among organizations (Jensen et al., 2007). Studies show that the combination of the two approaches improves firms’ innovative performance significantly (Jensen et al., 2007, Parrilli and Heras, 2016). As the innovation processes in tourism are more similar to the DUI approach, labs may have the potential to facilitate systematic innovation processes. However, there are rarely such R&D labs and other similar sources of innovation in the tourism industry (Hjalager, 2010), especially in experience-based tourism. Experiences are essential in tourism innovation, as the goal of tourism firms is to innovate to create unique and memorable experiences (Stamboulis and Skayannis, 2003, Campos et al., 2018). This paper focuses on the experience as a core product (primary experience sector), rather than as an addition to the product/service (secondary experience sector) (Sundbo and Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2008).


2.2. Labs in tourism Though lab concepts are seldom used in the tourism sector, there are a few studies that discuss the use of living labs in tourism (e.g. see: Jernsand, 2019, Guimont and Lapointe, 2016). A living lab is defined as “a physical or virtual space in which to solve societal challenges, especially for urban areas, by bringing together various stakeholders for collaboration and collective ideation” (Hossain et al., 2019, p. 977). One of the elements of living labs – co-creation – enables the potential to stimulate tourism innovation by facilitating the interactions among tourists, technology providers, and tourism firms (Jernsand, 2019, Guimont and Lapointe, 2016, Lapointe et al., 2015). However, this study will not just focus on living labs, as there might be other lab concepts or innovation facilitators used in tourism, such as hackathons (Lara and Lockwood, 2016). 2.3. Facilitation of labs Hakkarainen and Hyysalo (2016) argue that facilitation in living labs is just a part of the whole intermediary activities carried out by innovation facilitators. Howells (2006, p. 720) defines an innovation intermediary as “an organization or body that acts as agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process between two or more parties. Such intermediary activities include: helping to provide information about potential collaborators; brokering a transaction between two or more parties; acting as a mediator, or go-between, bodies or organizations that are already collaborating; and helping find advice, funding, and support for the innovation outcomes of such collaborations”. In the literature on labs in tourism, few studies describe the roles of the facilitators as innovation intermediaries. Also, there is a lack of understanding related to the effective facilitation and evaluation of living labs in general (Følstad, 2008, Fuglsang and Hansen, 2019, Hossain et al., 2019).

3. Method As this study has an exploratory nature, the qualitative case study approach is used. Stake (1994) suggests that choosing multiple cases (collective case study) to understand them will lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon. The larger research project, which this study is a part of, has planned tentatively six lab cases related to the co-creation of experiences in tourism with food/meals and/or culture in Norway, two of which had taken place. The primary data collection will be done by using semi-structured interviews and observations. All interviews will be recorded and transcribed, and then analyzed, verified, and reported. This study intends to employ within-case analysis and crosscase analysis to gain an overall understanding of the cases. Currently, this study is still in the data collection process but delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic.


4. Preliminary findings As data collection has been done on two of the tentatively planned cases (Vega and Trondheim labs), the preliminary findings are presented succinctly in the table below. These findings are grouped into a series of categories that explain how the facilitation was done in each lab case. The second case, the Trondheim food lab, has 2 subcases. Table 1 Preliminary findings of the first two cases

Lab case No. of facilitator(s) Role(s) of facilitator(s)

Background of facilitator(s) Background of participants

Length of activity Frequency of activity (rounds) Follow up activity Tools and methods

Purpose of the lab

Outcome of the lab

Vega 2 1 leading the whole activity (presenting, timing the activities, moderating discussions), 1 helping with encouraging participants and other arrangements 1 researcher, 1 local cultural center manager Local firms, volunteer organizations, local residents

Trondheim 1 1 Presenting and leading the activities

Trondheim 2 3 1 presenting and moderating discussions, 2 other performing cooking demonstration

Marketing consultant


Marketing/sales, managers, and owners of hotels and restaurants

4 hours 4-5 planned rounds

6 hours Only once

Cooks, chefs, marketing staffs, managers, and owner of hotels and restaurants 6 hours Only once

‘Homework’ available IGP, rapid prototyping, sticky notes, pens.



PowerPoint presentations, music and wine, pens and papers.

Innovation of meals experiences with cultural sustainability New ideas of meal experiences with cultural stories

Idea generation of meal experiences with storytelling

PowerPoint presentations, discussions, food and cooking tools for demonstration. Inspiration and new insights for participants related to meal experiences Some new ideas, but difficult to observe

Co-creation of new ideas, creativity, visible drawings, relation with others


Challenges observed

Low trust from the local firms, unclear ambitions, unclear responsibility of who to follow up, uncertain location for the next rounds

Unclear benefit for the participants’ organizations. Not all participants interacted with the facilitator. Lack of participants’ practical involvement.

Not all participants were engaged, lack of active involvement of the participants.

5. Preliminary discussion and conclusions This paper aims to contribute to the literature on labs for innovation in tourism by exploring the facilitation and facilitator roles of labs in experience-based tourism. From the early findings, the study indicates that labs may have the potential to stimulate more systematic innovation processes in experience-based tourism, as each case successfully resulted in new experience product ideas (see Table 1). From the observations and interviews, it can be temporarily concluded that engagement and active involvement of the participants is important in the facilitation of the lab activities. Also, the expected roles of the facilitators include following up the participants after the activities, organizing the next rounds of the lab, and informing the participants about the benefits of the lab activities for the participants’ organizations. These expected roles are indeed similar to the roles of innovation intermediaries suggested by (Howells, 2006). However, more findings are expected from the exploration of the upcoming data.


References BORODAKO, K., BERBEKA, J. & RUDNICKI, M. 2014. The potential of local KIBS companies as a determinant of tourism development in Krakow. Tourism Economics, 20, 1337-1348. CAMPOS, A. C., MENDES, J., VALLE, P. O. D. & SCOTT, N. 2018. Co-creation of tourist experiences: A literature review. Current Issues in Tourism, 21, 369-400. FØLSTAD, A. 2008. Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. FUGLSANG, L. & HANSEN, A. V. 2019. Report on cross-country comparison on existing innovation and living labs. FUZI, A., GRYSZKIEWICZ, L. & SIKORA, D. A Spectrum of Urban Innovation Intermediaries: from Co-working to Collaboration. ISPIM Conference Proceedings, 2018. The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), 1-6. GOMEZELJ, D. O. 2016. A systematic review of research on innovation in hospitality and tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. GUIMONT, D. & LAPOINTE, D. 2016. Empowering local tourism providers to innovate through a living lab process: Does scale matter? Technology Innovation Management Review, 6. HAKKARAINEN, L. & HYYSALO, S. 2016. The evolution of intermediary activities: Broadening the concept of facilitation in living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6. HJALAGER, A.-M. 2010. A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31, 1-12. HOSSAIN, M., LEMINEN, S. & WESTERLUND, M. 2019. A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976-988. HOWELLS, J. 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research policy, 35, 715-728. JENSEN, M. B., JOHNSON, B., LORENZ, E. & LUNDVALL, B.-Å. 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680-693. JERNSAND, E. M. 2019. Student living labs as innovation arenas for sustainable tourism. Tourism Recreation Research, 1-11. LAPOINTE, D., GUIMONT, D. & SÉVIGNY, A. 2015. The living lab approach to raise innovation capability among tourism practitioners. Tourism Dimensions, 2, 1827. LARA, M. & LOCKWOOD, K. 2016. Hackathons as Community-Based Learning: a Case Study. TechTrends, 60, 486-495. NAJDA-JANOSZKA, M. 2013. Innovative Activity of Small Tourist Enterprises– Cooperation with Local Institutional Partners. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 9, 17-32. NAJDA-JANOSZKA, M. & KOPERA, S. 2014. Exploring barriers to innovation in tourism industry–the case of southern region of Poland. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 190-201.


NOVELLI, M., SCHMITZ, B. & SPENCER, T. 2006. Networks, clusters and innovation in tourism: A UK experience. Tourism management, 27, 1141-1152. PARRILLI, M. D. & HERAS, H. A. 2016. STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientifictechnological and context-specific nuances. Research Policy, 45, 747-756. RØNNINGEN, M. 2010. Innovative processes in a nature‐based tourism case: The role of a tour‐operator as the driver of innovation. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 10, 190-206. RONNINGEN, M. & LIEN, G. 2014. The importance of systemic features for innovation orientation in tourism firms. Handbook of Research on Innovation in Tourism Industries, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. STAKE, R. E. 1994. Case Studies. In: DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage. STAMBOULIS, Y. & SKAYANNIS, P. 2003. Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism. Tourism management, 24, 35-43. SUNDBO, J. & HAGEDORN-RASMUSSEN, P. 2008. The backstaging of experience production. Creating experiences in the experience economy, 83-110.


Practitioners Presentation

Analysis of a program solving local issues in collaboration with technology companies: a case study of the SUNABA as a living lab in Shiojiri. Authors Masataka Mori, research analyst of MIRATUKU Takashi Yamada, Regional Revitalization Promotion Section Manager of Shiojiri City

Abstract Abstract: This paper uses the efforts of the Snubbing Lab in Shiojiri as a case study to examine a program that collaborated with a technology company to solve local problems. In a closed community, we believe that the Living Lab method provides great value in creating the future by extracting the essential local issues and working with outside companies to solve them in the direction the community is aiming. This time, we analyze the case of working with Toshiba to solve problems in the wine industry and to promote the appeal of the city. While the Living Lab's efforts are gradually spreading in Japan, this effort is noteworthy in that it reached prototyping. It will be presented as a concrete prototype of a solution to a local problem using the living lab method in a regional context different from that of Europe.

Key words: Keywords: Problem solving, Design research, Traditional industry, Co-creation, Prototyping, Japan


Although Shiojiri City has many hidden local resources, it is not well promoted and is not recognized by the target audience in their 20s and 40s in Japan. For example, despite the fact that Shiojiri is one of Japan's leading wine producing regions with 17 wineries, Shiojiri's wines still have a low presence in Japan and the rest of the world. In Japan, wine is treated as a tasteful product, making it difficult to express and communicate the taste and aroma of wine, and the reality is that it is only popularized by a few enthusiasts. We welcomed Toshiba Design Center as a business partner, and together with MIRATUKU, we conducted a program to solve problems using their technology while making use of Shiojiri's living lab, known as "SUNABA". In order to uncover the essential issues, an ethnographic survey was conducted, including interviews and fieldwork with artisans involved in the wine industry in Shiojiri and others involved in the city's local resources. In response to the issues raised, they created ideas that utilized Toshiba's technology and Shiojiri's local resources, presented them to city officials and the deputy mayor, and brushed them up. One of the many ideas that emerged was the development of "WaiNari", a system for visualizing the taste of wine. When the user speaks to a coaster equipped with a microphone about the aroma and taste of the wine he or she has drunk, the software creates a pattern of colors and shapes corresponding to the words and displays it on the screen of a computer or other device. It is hoped that it will become a new "indicator" for wine selection. The prototype was exhibited at the Japanese version of Ars Electronica known as School Festival of the Future ("Visualization of the taste of wine, developed by Shiojiri City and Toshiba", 2020). This initiative was covered by the mass media, including newspapers and television, and attracted attention as an example of cooperation with companies to promote the city's local brand. As a side effect, new connections between local governments and businesses have been created, such as Toshiba project members becoming members of SUNUBA. There are many initiatives by major companies to solve local problems, but the existence of SUNABA as a living lab makes it possible to penetrate the local scene and get to the essence of the problem. 100-year-old wineries in Shiojiri and the 400year-old lacquerware industry have a lot of potential, but they are difficult to approach from the outside. However, the presence of a living lab works a as a gateway between the local and the outside, which can create innovations that can transform a community. In a region with limited resources, it is difficult for local companies and artisans alone to solve problems toward a desirable future, but by connecting with companies and organizations outside the region, such as Toshiba, it is possible to solve problems in an optimal way. It is of great value that these Living Lab initiatives have been realized in Japan, which has a different cultural and historical background than Europe.


References Visualization of the taste of wine, developed by Shiojiri City and Toshiba. (2020). Retrieved 3 May 2020, from


Research in Progress paper

Developing open technology solutions in a simulated living lab environment: research in progress amidst the Covid-19 pandemic Authors Molitor, T., Clark, C., Wood, E., Wagner, U., Bausch, N., Holliday, N.

Abstract Many patients still experience sub-optimal care leading to adverse outcomes such as unplanned Intensive Care Unit admission, emergency surgery, cardiac arrest, and death. Electronic Health Record (EHR) software has the potential to support improved identification of those at risk of deterioration, however existing proprietary software solutions are costly and not always fit for purpose. This paper describes a research project supporting the development of a new EHR open source software application which will be developed with users in a simulated living lab environment, the impact of Covid-19 on face to face data collection, and the steps the research team are taking to ensure work continues in the current global pandemic crisis.

Key words: living lab, simulation, open source, electronic health records, Covid-19


Background and literature review Many patients still experience sub-optimal care leading to adverse outcomes such as unplanned Intensive Care Unit admission, emergency surgery, cardiac arrest, and death. In the UK, an estimated of 7% in-hospital deaths may be preventable (NCEPOD, 2007). Collation of patient vital sign data aims to alert nursing staff to early signs of the deteriorating patient. This can facilitate prompt escalation of care to medical staff and, where appropriate, early escalation for critical care referral, for example, with patients at risk of sepsis, early recognition is important to reduce avoidable deaths (NICE, 2017). Traditionally, paper-based methods have been used to collect such data and are still used today (for example, the use of the paper NEWS2 template in the UK). However, there are shortcomings with paper observations, such as time taken to complete, errors in calculations, omission of data, illegible handwriting (Aakre et al., 2017; Subbe et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2013), and difficult to share data amongst clinicians (Anton & Anton, 2016). Further to this, the sharing of paper-based data between healthcare professionals may constitute an information governance issue if misplaced. There is evidence emerging that implemented correctly, Electronic Health Records (EHRs) may improve patient outcomes, and are associated with improvements in other outcomes including quality of care, medication errors, test result administration and communication between clinicians (Nguyen et al., 2014). However, existing EHR solutions are widely documented as problematic. For instance, in existing proprietary systems vendor lock-in and expensive contracts (Ash et al., 2015), poor training and ongoing support for training (Ash et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2014) and lack of support for easy local configuration of systems (Cresswell et al., 2014; Krousel-Wood et al., 2018) has led to poor acceptance of systems. There are also numerous documented usability and user experience concerns regarding EHRs that may impact on patient safety, as well as the user experience and workload of the clinician using the software. These issues include requiring too much data that may not affect patient care whilst increasing clinician workload (Cresswell et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2014; Perry et al., 2014; Tsoukalas et al., 2015), concerns that digital methods do not provide improved quality over paper-based solutions (Nguyen et al., 2014; Wilbanks et al., 2018), lack of standardisation of data prohibiting further learning and research (Kopanitsa, 2017; Legaz-GarcĂ­a et al., 2016), no options to record narrative input or detail parent or clinician worry (Bansler et al., 2016; Jamieson et al., 2017; Kossman et al., 2013), lengthy log-in and log-out times (Adelman et al., 2017; Cresswell et al., 2014; Kossman et al., 2013), alert fatigue (Benthin et al., 2016; Finkel & Galvin, 2017; Manaktala & Claypool, 2017; Miller et al., 2015; Slovis et al., 2017), poor supporting existing hardware infrastructure (Alsohime et al., 2019; Cresswell et al., 2014; Larsen et al., 2018; Nguyen et al., 2014), and poor or no interoperability with other systems (Dalal et al., 2016; Nguyen et al., 2014; Skyttberg et al., 2016). These barriers may facilitate non-advocated workarounds for efficiency; however many of these workarounds may be dangerous, and may affect accuracy of auditing as systems do not reflect what actually happened in a particular setting (Adelman et al., 2017; Ash et al., 2015; Blijleven et al., 2017; Cresswell et al., 2014; Kossman et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2017; Slight et al., 2016).


It has been posited that many of the barriers described above can be tackled using open source software (OSS), which due to the open nature of the source code, may support the development of innovative localised software solutions in healthcare (Lundell et al., 2011) at a lower cost (Boehm, 2019). An open approach may also ensure quality of code (allaying fears some may have, arguably unfairly, of OSS being a ‘wild west’ (Kendall et al., 2016), due to the open source community being able to inspect, fix and improve the code, leading to fewer bugs and errors that would be less likely to come to light in the proprietary world (Lundell et al., 2011). There are, however, also some documented barriers to the widespread use of OSS in the setting of EHRs, for example, procurement teams do not always consider open source systems, often due to a lack of understanding, and concern around liabilities, security and safety (Dixon et al., 2013; Finkel & Galvin, 2017; Ratwani et al., 2016). Therefore, the InnovateUK funded ‘Develop in the Open’ (dito) project aimed to support the improvement of patient outcomes and reduce clinician workload by developing a new patient observation application using open standards and interoperability, collaboratively with key stakeholders including doctors, nurses, patients, researchers, designers and open source specialists. This paper describes the ‘research in progress’ and focuses on the initial project plan to develop the application with clinicians in a simulated living lab environment, and the move to online research methods to support ongoing data collection in the light of the Covid19 pandemic.

The ‘dito’ application Currently a first stage iteration of the dito application has been developed that allows a user to collect patient observations as per the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) standardised assessment, and further informed following a scoping literature review and a co-creation workshop with nurses with a range of experiences using EHRs (Holliday, 2019). NEWS2 is a “simple aggregate scoring system in which a score is allocated to physiological measurements, already recorded in routine practice, when patients present to, or are being monitored in hospital” (Royal College of Physicians, 2017). The app has been designed to allow a nurse to input patient observations pertaining to the NEWS2 calculation, following which, the NEWS2 score will automatically be calculated, prompting further action and signposting for escalation if required.

Research question Following the literature review of documented barriers to existing use of digital patient observation products and OSS, and a co-creation workshop with nurses, the research sought to answer the following questions: • Does the NEWS2 algorithm work correctly? • Do nurses find the software easy to use? • What must be changed about the software to improve it further?


• •

Do nurses perceive the software to have a potential impact upon patient safety? Is the software likely to increase or decrease clinician workload?

Methodology Living labs can be described as “…a network that integrates both user-centred research and open innovation… in which companies team up with diverse types of partners and users to generate new products, services and technologies” (Leminen et al., 2012). Many universities now have access to medical simulation environments, traditionally used effectively for the teaching of health and care students (Beal et al., 2017), but can also, with little to no redesign be used as a “Utilizer-driven living lab” (Leminen et al., 2012), allowing for new health technologies to be tested to support product and business development with no risk to patients. Controlled trials can be used to test the effectiveness of new technologies on patient outcomes, however is a costly and inappropriate way to identify usability issues, and there is risk of causing harm to patients via the use of untested software (Metelmann & Metelmann, 2016). Therefore, other methods are key to establishing the usability and likely acceptance of health technologies prior to embarking upon the ‘traditional’ randomised control trial standard of evidence (Sieverink et al., 2017). Exploring usability in real-life ward living lab settings also potentiates the risk of interrupting patient care (Dahl et al., 2010). The use of simulated living labs therefore ensures functionality and usability issues are identified and resolved in setting with high ecological validity prior to testing the clinical utility of the technology in a trial setting (Metelmann & Metelmann, 2016), and also allows for video recording of the simulation without compromising patient confidentially (Dahl et al., 2010; Jensen et al., 2012). The data collected can be rich and informative, despite the relatively intense timespan compared to traditional trials (Jensen et al., 2012). Higher ecological validity in a simulation setting also means that simulation results are more generalisable to the eventual trial or clinical context, due to the realism of the setting (Kushniruk et al., 2013). Coventry University (CU) has the recently built a new state of the art Healthcare Simulation Area, which was designed with the key philosophy originally to function as a safe learning environment for students to practise their technical and nontechnical skills in an environment that is as close to reality as possible. One of the key aspects in the design of the building was the ability to follow “the patient journey” from point of illness or injury through acute care to rehabilitation and recovery. The building therefore contains a mock ambulance (ambulance body), two four-bed wards, two high-dependency unit (HDU) rooms, midwifery area, and an operating theatre. Also inside the building are two full-size community houses, one based on a traditional two bedroom house, the other one purpose-built around assistive technology. The dimensions of bed spaces and the equipment (e.g. patient call systems, simulated medical gas system) are based on UK hospital standards. Patients are simulated using high-fidelity patient simulators (SimMan 3G, MetiMan). Each bed space in the ward and HDU is equipped with one pan-tilt-zoom and one


fixed-view camera, linked to a control room and the University’s web-based capture system. This allows livestreaming of footage as well as recording to allow for data collection and later transcription, coding and data analysis. It is this environment in which the researchers planned to test to the dito application. When developing a simulation to use within a living lab, it is important that it is designed with the following concepts in mind – concepts that were originally considered with regards flight simulations, but have since been utilised for consideration in medical simulators (Rehmann et al., 1995): 1. Equipment fidelity – does the simulation replicate the appearance and feel of the real system? 2. Environmental fidelity – are environmental factors of the real-life environment replicated, e.g. visual and auditory cues? 3. Psychological fidelity – does the simulation feel real to the participants? Are they able to suspend their disbelief that that are in a simulator living lab? This project, therefore, planned to use the CU Healthcare Simulation Area as a simulated living lab to test initial iterations of the dito application with nurses and junior doctors. Medical scenarios with high psychological fidelity were developed by clinical project partners to allow testing of the application across the patient journey, to test usability and acceptability of the application, as well as to ensure correct calculation of NEWS2 scores and subsequent prompts for clinical action. Following the worldwide outbreak of Covid-19, there was no longer the opportunity to conduct the research in the face-to-face simulated living lab environment, following an Ethics Committee decision to put a temporary hold on all face-to-face research. Notwithstanding the current climate makes the development of an application capable of recognising patient deterioration in a timely manner increasingly important. We must therefore move towards ways to safely, remotely, and rapidly develop new health technologies (Public Health England, 2020). The project team are currently redesigning the methodology to support remote collection of user testing data. The project will now invite nurses to test the application in the remote presence of project researchers via screen-sharing software. A Think-Aloud methodology will enable the team to work through the high-fidelity medical scenarios (Lewis & Rieman, 1994), allowing nurses to input dummy patient observation variables whilst discussing their experiences of the user interface, as well as testing the accuracy of the NEWS2 algorithm. Semi-structured questions exploring views on the impact the app can make to patient safety and clinician workload will also be explored. This will allow the team to collect vital usability and user experience data, improving the app iteratively whilst waiting until it is safe to resume face-to-face testing in the simulated living lab environment.


Expected findings It is expected that the online testing will allow the researchers to identify vital usability and user experience data, nurses’ views on the apps potential to impact upon patient safety and clinician workload whilst testing the NEWS2 algorithm. These findings will then be used to imprve the app for a second iteration, which is intended to be tested once it is safe to resume face-to-face testing in the simulated living lab environment.

Reflections and conclusion OSS has the potential to support the development of innovative healthcare technologies, if knowledge of open source is improved, and fears regarding security and safety are allayed. The allaying of these fears can be supported by the use of simulated living labs to test the technology in settings with high equipment, environmental and psychological ecological validity whilst not risking patient safety in a real-life hospital setting. Once the usability and safety case is made for the new application, it can then be developed and tested in a more traditional trial setting to move onto exploring the impact of the new application on recognition of patients at risk of deterioration and subsequently outcomes for these patients. In the current worldwide pandemic we find ourselves in, living lab researchers and designers must be agile and flexible about the methods we use, and we must think creatively to quickly iterate and test healthcare technologies whilst maintaining the safety of all stakeholders. The dito project continues despite the global pandemic, and we hope to update the living lab community with new findings in the near future.


References Aakre, C. A., Kitson, J. E., Li, M., & Herasevich, V. (2017). Iterative User Interface Design for Automated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Calculator in Sepsis Detection. JMIR Human Factors, 4(2), e14. Adelman, J. S., Berger, M. A., Rai, A., Galanter, W. L., Lambert, B. L., Schiff, G. D., Vawdrey, D. K., Green, R. A., Salmasian, H., Koppel, R., Schechter, C. B., Applebaum, J. R., & Southern, W. N. (2017). A national survey assessing the number of records allowed open in electronic health records at hospitals and ambulatory sites. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(5), 992–995. Alsohime, F., Temsah, M.-H., Al-Eyadhy, A., Bashiri, F. A., Househ, M., Jamal, A., Hasan, G., Alhaboob, A. A., Alabdulhafid, M., & Amer, Y. S. (2019). Satisfaction and perceived usefulness with newly-implemented Electronic Health Records System among pediatricians at a university hospital. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 169, 51–57. Anton, F., & Anton, S. (2016). Implementing the Patient Clinical Observation Sheet as a Service in Hospitals. In T. Borangiu, M. Dragoicea, & H. Nóvoa (Eds.), Exploring Services Science (Vol. 247, pp. 693–702). Springer International Publishing. Ash, J. S., Sittig, D. F., McMullen, C. K., Wright, A., Bunce, A., Mohan, V., Cohen, D. J., & Middleton, B. (2015). Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: A qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15(1), 35. Bansler, J. P., Havn, E. C., Schmidt, K., Mønsted, T., Petersen, H. H., & Svendsen, J. H. (2016). Cooperative Epistemic Work in Medical Practice: An Analysis of Physicians’ Clinical Notes. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 25(6), 503–546. Beal, M. D., Kinnear, J., Anderson, C. R., Martin, T. D., Wamboldt, R., & Hooper, L. (2017). The Effectiveness of Medical Simulation in Teaching Medical Students Critical Care Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare, 12(2), 104–116. Benthin, C., Pannu, S., Khan, A., Gong, M., & for the NHLBI Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network. (2016). The Nature and Variability of Automated Practice Alerts Derived from Electronic Health Records in a U.S. Nationwide Critical Care Research Network. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, AnnalsATS.201603-172BC. Blijleven, V., Koelemeijer, K., Wetzels, M., & Jaspers, M. (2017). Workarounds Emerging From Electronic Health Record System Usage: Consequences for Patient Safety, Effectiveness of Care, and Efficiency of Care. JMIR Human Factors, 4(4), e27.


Boehm, M. (2019). The emergence of governance norms in volunteer-driven open source communities. Journal of Open Law, Technology and Society, 11(1), 3–39. Cresswell, K. M., Bates, D. W., Williams, R., Morrison, Z., Slee, A., Coleman, J., Robertson, A., Sheikh, A., Avery, T., Blake, L., Chuter, A., Slight, S. P., Girling, A., Lee, L., Lilford, R., McCloughan, L., Mozaffar, H., & Schofield, J. (2014). Evaluation of medium-term consequences of implementing commercial computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support prescribing systems in two ‘early adopter’ hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 21(e2), e194–e202. Dahl, Y., Alsos, O. A., & Svanæs, D. (2010). Fidelity Considerations for Simulation-Based Usability Assessments of Mobile ICT for Hospitals. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 26(5), 445–476. Dalal, A. K., Schnipper, J., Massaro, A., Hanna, J., Mlaver, E., McNally, K., Stade, D., Morrison, C., & Bates, D. W. (2016). A web-based and mobile patient-centered “microblog” messaging platform to improve care team communication in acute care. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, ocw110. Dixon, B. E., Simonaitis, L., Goldberg, H. S., Paterno, M. D., Schaeffer, M., Hongsermeier, T., Wright, A., & Middleton, B. (2013). A pilot study of distributed knowledge management and clinical decision support in the cloud. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 59(1), 45–53. Finkel, N., & Galvin, H. (2017). Electronic Health Records: Medication Decision Support for Inpatient Medicine. Hospital Medicine Clinics, 6(2), 204–215. Holliday, N. (2019). ‘If it works it would be bliss’—Findings from a literature review and workshop with nurses. Develop in the Open - Project Dissemination Event, Coventry University. Jamieson, T., Ailon, J., Chien, V., & Mourad, O. (2017). An electronic documentation system improves the quality of admission notes: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(1), 123–129. Jensen, S., Lyng, K. M., & Pnøhr, C. (2012). The role of simulation in clinical information systems development. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 180, 373–377. Kendall, J. E., Kendall, K. E., & Germonprez, M. (2016). Game theory and open source contribution: Rationale behind corporate participation in open source software development. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26(4), 323–343. Kopanitsa, G. (2017). Integration of Hospital Information and Clinical Decision Support Systems to Enable the Reuse of Electronic Health Record Data. Methods of Information in Medicine, 56(03), 238–247.


Kossman, S. P., Bonney, L. A., & Kim, M. J. (2013). Electronic Health Record Tools’ Support of Nurses’ Clinical Judgment and Team Communication: CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 31(11), 539–544. Krousel-Wood, M., McCoy, A. B., Ahia, C., Holt, E. W., Trapani, D. N., Luo, Q., PriceHaywood, E. G., Thomas, E. J., Sittig, D. F., & Milani, R. V. (2018). Implementing electronic health records (EHRs): Health care provider perceptions before and after transition from a local basic EHR to a commercial comprehensive EHR. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(6), 618–626. Kushniruk, A., Nohr, C., Jensen, S., & Borycki, E. M. (2013). From Usability Testing to Clinical Simulations: Bringing Context into the Design and Evaluation of Usable and Safe Health Information Technologies. Contribution of the IMIA Human Factors Engineering for Healthcare Informatics Working Group. Yearbook of Medical Informatics, 8, 78–85. Larsen, E., Fong, A., Wernz, C., & Ratwani, R. M. (2018). Implications of electronic health record downtime: An analysis of patient safety event reports. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(2), 187–191. Lee, Y., Park, Y. R., Kim, J., Kim, J. H., Kim, W. S., & Lee, J.-H. (2017). Usage Pattern Differences and Similarities of Mobile Electronic Medical Records Among Health Care Providers. JMIR MHealth and UHealth, 5(12), e178. Legaz-García, M. del C., Martínez-Costa, C., Menárguez-Tortosa, M., & Fernández-Breis, J. T. (2016). A semantic web based framework for the interoperability and exploitation of clinical models and EHR data. Knowledge-Based Systems, 105, 175–189. Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living Labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, September 2012, 6–11. Lewis, C., & Rieman, J. (1994). Task-centred user interface design. Lewis & Rieman. Lundell, B., Lings, B., & Syberfeldt, A. (2011). Practitioner perceptions of Open Source software in the embedded systems area. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(9), 1540–1549. Manaktala, S., & Claypool, S. R. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a computerized surveillance algorithm and decision support system on sepsis mortality. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(1), 88–95. Metelmann, B., & Metelmann, C. (2016). Medical simulation center as a model for testing mHealth concepts in prehospital emergency medicine. 2016 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 1423–1426. Miller, A., Moon, B., Anders, S., Walden, R., Brown, S., & Montella, D. (2015). Integrating computerized clinical decision support systems into clinical work: A meta-synthesis of qualitative research. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(12), 1009–1018.


NCEPOD. (2007). Emergency Admissions: A Journey in the Right Direction? A report of the national confidential enquiry into patient outcomes and death (2007). NCEPOD. Nguyen, L., Bellucci, E., & Nguyen, L. T. (2014). Electronic health records implementation: An evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(11), 779–796. NICE. (2017). Sepsis recognition, diagnosis and early management: NICE Guideline NG51. London: NICE. Perry, J. J., Sutherland, J., Symington, C., Dorland, K., Mansour, M., & Stiell, I. G. (2014). Assessment of the impact on time to complete medical record using an electronic medical record versus a paper record on emergency department patients: A study. Emergency Medicine Journal, 31(12), 980–985. Public Health England. (2020). Rapid evaluation of digital health products during the Covid19 pandemic. Ratwani, R., Fairbanks, T., Savage, E., Adams, K., Wittie, M., Boone, E., Hayden, A., Barnes, J., Hettinger, Z., & Gettinger, A. (2016). Mind the Gap: A systematic review to identify usability and safety challenges and practices during electronic health record implementation. Applied Clinical Informatics, 07(04), 1069–1087. Rehmann, A. J., Mitman, R. D., & Reynolds, M. C. (1995). A Handbook of Flight Simulation Fidelity Requirements for Human Factors Research (DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/46). Article DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/46. Royal College of Physicians. (2017). National Early Warning Score (NEWS2): Standardising the assement of acute illness severity in the NHS. London: Royal College of Physicians. Royal College of Physicians. Sieverink, F., Kelders, S., Poel, M., & van Gemert-Pijnen, L. (2017). Opening the Black Box of Electronic Health: Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Log Data. JMIR Research Protocols, 6(8), e156. Skyttberg, N., Vicente, J., Chen, R., Blomqvist, H., & Koch, S. (2016). How to improve vital sign data quality for use in clinical decision support systems? A qualitative study in nine Swedish emergency departments. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 16(1), 61. Slight, S. P., Eguale, T., Amato, M. G., Seger, A. C., Whitney, D. L., Bates, D. W., & Schiff, G. D. (2016). The vulnerabilities of computerized physician order entry systems: A qualitative study: Table 1. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(2), 311–316. Slovis, B. H., Nahass, T. A., Salmasian, H., Kuperman, G., & Vawdrey, D. K. (2017). Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: A systematic review.


Journal of the American Medical





Subbe, C. P., Gao, H., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). Reproducibility of physiological track-andtrigger warning systems for identifying at-risk patients on the ward. Intensive Care Medicine, 33(4), 619–624. Tsoukalas, A., Albertson, T., & Tagkopoulos, I. (2015). From Data to Optimal Decision Making: A Data-Driven, Probabilistic Machine Learning Approach to Decision Support for Patients With Sepsis. JMIR Medical Informatics, 3(1), e11. Wilbanks, B. A., Berner, E. S., Alexander, G. L., Azuero, A., Patrician, P. A., & Moss, J. A. (2018). The effect of data-entry template design and anesthesia provider workload on documentation accuracy, documentation efficiency, and user-satisfaction. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 118, 29–35. Wilson, S. J., Wong, D., Clifton, D., Fleming, S., Way, R., Pullinger, R., & Tarassenko, L. (2013). Track and trigger in an emergency department: An observational evaluation study. Emergency Medicine Journal, 30(3), 186–191.



Examining people’s implicit smartphone use attitudes via an adapted IAT procedure Authors Floor Denecker – Prof. Dr. Lieven De Marez – Prof. Dr. Koen Ponnet –

Abstract Examining attitudes can foster the understanding of smartphone use (Serenko & Turel, 2018). Currently, only smartphone users’ explicit attitudes are examined via selfreports (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). However, as the findings are quite paradoxical (Kumar & Sriram, 2018; Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015; Vandendriessche & De Marez, 2020), it can be stated that these attitudes do not tell the whole story (Serenko & Turel, 2018). Since implicit attitudes are particularly salient in routinized technology use settings, the investigation of these can help to complete the story. The specific situation and context of smartphone use must also be included into this investigation (Arminen, 2006; Nickerson et al., 2008). To do so, our implicit association task (n = 85) tries to examine the direction and strength of a link of appropriateness with smartphone use situations. The preliminary results show that specific situations indeed seem to be important (Arminen, 2006; Nickerson et al., 2008). The ‘individual situations’ were significantly more categorized as appropriate, while the ‘interacting situations’ were significantly more categorized as inappropriate. Further analyses of D scores are needed, just as further research to increase the – currently low – consistency rates. However, it seems true that this adapted IAT procedure can be an interesting addition to multimethod research (Serenko & Turel, 2018), as it potentially offers interesting insights that are otherwise inaccessible via explicit self-reports (Nosek et al., 2011).

Key words IAT task, Implicit measures, Smartphone use attitudes, Multimethod research


Theoretical background An attitude can be defined as a psychological evaluation, feeling, or tendency towards an object, human or situation, involving some degree of (dis)favour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1995; Khatun et al., 2017). Consequently these evaluations inform our reasoning about actions, which potentially translates into behaviour (Kraus, 1995). In this way, examining attitudes can foster the understanding of smartphone use (Serenko & Turel, 2018), which is necessary as paradoxical findings are common. Kumar and Sriram (2018) found that even explicit negative smartphone perceptions do not prevent people from daily automatic smartphone use (Roh et al., 2018), driven by ‘entrenched’ habits (Oulasvirta et al., 2012). This is in line with the ‘dependence paradox’: whereas people have often fully adopted the smartphone, they experience difficulties with dependence and try to control these by applying ‘DIY rules’. However, these rules often turn out as ineffective in stopping automatic smartphone use (Vandendriessche & De Marez, 2020). Rainie and Zickuhr (2015) also showed that many Americans regard the smartphone as distracting from and harmful to social interaction, even while they cannot resist the temptation themselves. These paradoxical findings stem from self-reports, investigating smartphone users’ explicit attitudes, which are among the most important research tools in social sciences (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). Explicit attitudes, as examined in the aformentioned studies, are constructed by thoughtful processes in which people retrieve information from memory, develop an evaluation, become aware of their attitude and then describe it in self-reports. However, it seems that people are sometimes unable to provide accurate reports of their own attitudes, since they are not always fully aware of them (Nosek et al., 2011). These descriptions are also often adjusted to what participants consider to be the expected or desired attitudes (Turel et al., 2011). As a consequence of both, selfreports are often biased (Fazio & Olson, 2003). Also, as is shown by the paradoxical findings, and in line with the dual-attitude model of Serenko and Turel (2018), explicit attitudes do not tell the whole story as to by which factors smartphone use is driven. Since implicit attitudes are particularly salient in routinized technology use settings, such as – mostly habitual – smartphone use (Oulasvirta et al., 2012), supplementing smartphone research with these attitudes can shed light on the experienced paradoxes. These implicit evaluations are stored in fast-access memory, and are activated unconsciously in response to associated stimuli. In this way, it can directly drive smartphone use behaviour by bypassing and influencing the often-studied explicit, rational mechanisms.


So, while both types of attitudes clearly differ in its mechanisms, both can affect smartphone behaviour. Examining implicit attitudes also overcomes the limitations linked with self-reports, since it reduces participants’ ability to control their responses and since it does not require – often difficult – introspection (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014; Nosek et al., 2011) about habitual smartphone use. In the present study, the implicit attitudes towards smartphone use are indirectly investigated (Egloff & Schmukle, 2002; Roh et al., 2018) by means of the implicit association task, IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998). This task consists of two binary categorization tasks, combined in a manner that is either compatible or incompatible with the psychological attributes under examination (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). The strength of the association of the implicit attitude towards the target object will influence the categorization performance. Participants will execute it faster when the response mapping is compatible, while the perfomance will be impaired when the key mapping is incompatible (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). In this way, an IAT task aims to measure the strength of vast association (Hargadon et al., 2018). However, the proposed IAT task is used in a somewhat different, more detailed way: our IAT task rather tries to examine the direction and strength of a particular link for each participant, in each situation in which a smartphone can be used. As a matter of fact, previous (explicit) research namely has shown that attitudes may differ because of the specific situation and context in which the smartphone is used (Arminen, 2006; Nickerson et al., 2008). Namely, while the smartphone can be used anywhere and anytime, it is seen as less acceptable in more intimate settings (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015), or social situations with co-located people (Lever & Katz, 2007). More specifically, the majority found it unacceptable to use smartphones during meetings, in restaurants or at family dinners (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). The main motivation for this is that smartphones are considered capable of interrupting social interactions (Nickerson et al., 2008). Therefore, the stimuli in the proposed IAT task comprises, amongst others, 11 different situations which must be categorized as acceptable or inacceptable smartphone use. Some of the situations can be regarded as ‘individual situations’, whereas others can be seen as ‘interacting situations’. Based on previous evidence, it seems that smartphone use in individual situations will mostly be categorized as appropriate, while smartphone use in interacting situations will be perceived as inappropriate.


Procedure Our IAT task was developed via the lab JS tool (Henninger et al., 2019), which means that participants had to complete the task on a computer. The task consisted of five different blocks. At the beginning of each block, specific instructions were shown. Each trial of a block consisted of the same sequence. First, a fixation cross was presented for 500 ms. In this way, participants were focused on the position where a picture or word was presented in the next step. The presentation duration of this stimulus was not limited, but participants were forced to categorize it as fast as possible. In this way, it was tried to constrain their processing resources, so to minimalize the chance to overthink their answers explicitly (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). In total, 85 adults with a parental role fulfilled this task. There were two versions of the task, so that the order of the compatible and incompatible blocks could be counterbalanced to prevent order-specific effects (Greenwald et al., 1998). The first version was performed by 48 participants, while the others (n = 37) carried out the second version. The procedure of the first version is outlined in what follows. During the first block, pictures of 11 different situations were shown. Some of these can be seen as ‘individual situations’, for example household chores, lunching alone, toilet, working alone and relaxing in the couch alone; others can be seen as an ‘interacting situations’, such as dinner, bed time, breakfast, trip, meeting, relaxing in the couch with partner. Each situation was presented only once in a randomized order, and the participants had to categorize these as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’, respectively by pressing the left key ‘d’ and the right key ‘k’. During the second block, participants had to categorize 14 different (Dutch) words as ‘positive’ and ‘negative’, also by respectively pressing the left and right key. Half of the words had an inherent positive connotation, for example ‘happiness’ [geluk]. The other half had an inherent negative connotation, for instance ‘failure’ [mislukking]. Again, each of these words had been presented only once, in a randomized order. During these first two blocks, the participants learned a particular response mapping, linked with the left and right key. These pictures and words were combined in a third block. This compatible block followed a congruent response mapping, as the appearing picture or word had to be categorized as ‘appropriate/positive’ by pressing the left key, or as ‘inappropriate/negative’ by pressing the right key. During block 4, participants were asked again to categorize the words. However, as the response mapping had changed, ‘positive’ words had to be categorized by pressing the right key, while ‘negative’ words were linked with the left key. In this way, block 5 was seen as the incongruent or incompatible block, where the appearing picture or word had to be categorized as ‘appropriate/negative’, by pressing the left key, and ‘inappropriate/positive’, by pressing the right key.


Analysis Before analyzing the collected data, the data was cleaned. Only the relevant data linked with situation categorization was preserved. Next, in general, invalid response times (> 3000ms) were removed, since these signalled that participants had a chance to overthink their categorization (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). Next, participants who showed inconsistent answers on the same situations over block 1, block 3 and block 5 were removed. In this way, the amount of valid responses could differ between each situation. First of all, the consistency rates were examined for each situation. These proportions reflected the amount of 85 participants who categorized the situation consistently as ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ in all three relevant blocks. A low consistency rate might indicate that the participants changed their minds about the categorization. Next, the categorization proportions were examined for each situation. In this way, the hypothesized consensus in ‘appropriateness’ of smartphone use in particular situations was investigated. To do so, Chi-squared tests were conducted, examining whether there is a significant difference between the number of participants who categorized a situation as ‘appropriate’, compared to those who perceived it as ‘inappropriate’. Lastly, D scores were calculated for each participant in each condition (combination of situation and categorization). To do so, the reaction time in the (congruent) third block was subtracted from the reaction time in the (incongruent) fifth block. One could expect to find positive D values. Independent-samples t-tests were also conducted, as a significantly larger D value should suggest a stronger general implicit association linked with one of both categorizations of a smartphone situation.

Preliminary results The consistency rates differ for each situation, between a range of 0.600 (meeting) and 0.765 (relaxing in the couch with one’s partner), M = 0.681 (SD = 0.047). The lowest consistency rate shows that 40% of the participants changed their categorization over the three blocks.


Situations of smartphone use Situation 1: dinner Situation 2: bed time Situation 3: household chores Situation 4: lunching alone Situation 5: breakfast Situation 6: toilet Situation 7: trip Situation 8: meeting Situation 9: working alone Situation 10: relaxing in the couch alone Situation 11: relaxing in the couch with partner Mean (SD)

Consistency rate 0.682 0.706 0.706 0.647 0.624 0.671 0.671 0.600 0.694 0.729 0.765 0.681 (0.047)

Next, the categorization proportions were examined for each situation by carrying out Chi-squared tests. There was only one situation about which the participants do not reach consensus, namely using the smartphone during household chores. Situations of smartphone use

Categorization proportion

Situation 1: dinner Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

57 1 ꭓ²(1, 58) = 54.069, p < 0.001**

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

41 19 ꭓ²(1, 60) = 8.067, p = 0.005**

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

35 25 ꭓ²(1, 60) = 1.667, p = 0.197

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

9 46 ꭓ²(1, 55) = 24.891, p < 0.001**

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

50 3 ꭓ²(1, 53) = 41.679, p < 0.001**

Situation 2: bed time

Situation 3: household chores

Situation 4: lunching alone

Situation 5: breakfast


Situations of smartphone use

Categorization proportion

Situation 6: toilet Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

12 45 ꭓ²(1, 57) = 19.105, p < 0.001**

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

55 2 ꭓ²(1, 57) = 49.281, p < 0.001**

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

36 15 ꭓ²(1, 51) = 8.647, p = 0.003**

Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test Situation 10: relaxing in the couch alone Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test Situation 11: relaxing in the couch with partner Inappropriate Appropriate Chi-square test

8 51 ꭓ²(1, 59) = 31.339, p < 0.001**

Situation 7: trip

Situation 8: meeting

Situation 9: working alone

4 58 ꭓ²(1, 62) = 47.032, p < 0.001** 50 17 ꭓ²(1, 67) = 16.254, p < 0.001**

Lastly, opposite to what was expected, not all D scores were positive. Also, no significant differences in D scores between both categorizations of a situation were found. In other words, none of the situations seem to have a general stronger association with one of both appropriateness categorizations. Situations of smartphone use

Association strength

Situation 1: dinner D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 2: bed time D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test

476.26 ms - 6.00 ms / 504.58 ms 2.99 ms t(58) = 1.39, p = 0.170


Situations of smartphone use Situation 3: household chores D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 4: lunching alone D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test

Association strength 424.99 ms 458.99 ms t(58) = -0.112, p = 0.911 -391.61 ms 279.73 ms t(53) = - 1.829, p = 0.073

Situation 5: breakfast D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 6: toilet D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 7: trip D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 8: meeting D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 9: working alone D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 10: relaxing in the couch alone D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test Situation 11: relaxing in the couch with partner D of inappropriate D of appropriate Independent-samples t-test

166.85 ms 258.44 ms t(51) = - 0.136, p = 0.892 182.52 ms 353.91 ms t(55) = -0.905, p = 0.369 405.16 ms -765.06 ms t(55) = 1.401, p = 0.167 363.63 ms 514.41 ms t(49) = -0.360, p = 0.720 188.45 ms 342.60 ms t(54) = -0.907, p = 0.370 956.18 ms 714.17 ms t(60) = 0.462, p = 0.664 474.81 ms 129.83 ms t(64) = 1.117, p = 0.268


Conclusion Altogether, the findings demonstrate that the consistency rates are not very high, since on average only 67.8% of the participants categorized the situations in a consistent way. As each situation was repeated three times, the participant potentially gained processing resources (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014). In this way, awareness could change their categorization response in a more social desirable way (Turel et al., 2011). It must be further examined how these consistency rates can be improved to ensure the quality of this implicit association task. Next, the categorization proportions show that participants (almost always) agree about the (in)appropriateness of smartphone use in a particular situation. As hypothesized, the specific situation in which the smartphone is used seems to be important (Arminen, 2006; Nickerson et al., 2008). Also implicitly measured, smartphone use seems to be less acceptable in social situations with co-located people (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). The ‘individual situations’ were namely significantly more categorized as appropriate, while the ‘interacting situations’ were significantly more categorized as inappropriate. There was only one situation about which the participants do not reach a consensus, namely using the smartphone during household chores. Possibly, it was unclear whether this is an ‘individual’ or an ‘interacting’ situation and whether household chores are linked with social interactions that can be interrupted (Nickerson et al., 2008). Lastly, for not all categorizations of situations a positive D score was found and for none of the situations, there was a significant difference between the D scores of both categorizations. However, further analyses of these D scores are needed, for example to compare the D strengths between the different situations, and to examine the tendencies of implicit responses on an individual level. During further research, this IAT approach should be extended in several ways. First, it would be good to show the same pictures more than once in each block. Next, these pictures must be standardized, and pretested in a more rigorous way. Potentially, this can increase the consistency rates. To end, the sample size must also be enlarged in order to increase the power. Future studies might also include more demographic information, such as age, which can potentially influence people’s smartphone attitudes. Navabi et al. (2016) namely found that older adults have a negative attitude towards smartphone use due to anxiety, whereas young adults were found to be more tolerant of using smartphones during public social interactions (Rainie & Zickuhr, 2015). Furthermore, just like the survey by Rainie and Zickuhr (2015) did not specify what ‘using a cellphone’ meant, this is not the case either in the used stimuli. The pictures only showed smartphone use in a particular situation, without specifying the purpose of using it, which may of course influence appropriateness attitudes. More precisely, Kumar and Sriram (2018) found differences in attitudes towards smartphone use when used in a procedural, social or compulsive way. It would also be interesting to let our


adapted IAT procedure offer an addition to multimethod research, by combining this procedure with, on the one hand, self-reports of explicit attitudes towards smartphone use in the same contexts, and, on the other, their real smartphone use behavior, measured by a smartphone logging application. Adding the experience sampling method would also offer valuable information about the actual smartphone use, such as the context and its purpose. In this way, it could be examined (1) whether smartphone use is indeed also directly driven by users’ implicit attitude in combination with external attitudes (Serenko & Turel, 2018), (2) whether dissociations are found between both measures, and (3) whether it is the case that implicit attitudes towards smartphone use in particular situations is positively associated with the habit of actually using a smartphone in this situation. This might show that someone’s attitude towards smartphone use becomes more tolerant with increased use. In order to work in this multimethodic way, it is important to keep in mind that the different measures must be comparable to each other (Gawronski & De Houwer, 2014).

References Arminen, I. (2006). Social functions of location in mobile telephony. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 10, 319–323. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). The psychology of attitudes. Psychology & Marketing, 12(5), 459–466. Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2002). Predictive validity of an implicit association test for assessing anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1441–1455. Fazio, R., & Olson, M. (2003). Implicit Measures in Social Cognition Research: Their Meaning and Use. Annual review of psychology, 54, 297–327. Gawronski, B., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 283–310). Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. Hargadon, D., Macdonald, T., & Fabrigar, L. (2018). Developing an Implicit Measure of Habit Strength. Henninger, F., Shevchenko, Y., Mertens, U. K., Kieslich, P. J., & Hilbig, B. E. (2019). lab.js: A free, open, online study builder [Preprint]. PsyArXiv.


Khatun, M., Jewel, M., & Ali, J. (2017). Consumer’s Attitude towards the Use of Smartphone in Bangladesh: A Circumstantial Study on Rangpur Region. European Journal of Business and Management, 9, 31–56. Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(1), 58–75. Kumar, D. J., & Sriram, A. (2018). The Attitude towards Smartphones and its Influence on Process, Social and Compulsive Usage. 4, 301–318. Lever, K. M., & Katz, J. E. (2007). Cell phones in campus libraries: An analysis of policy responses to an invasive mobile technology. Information Processing & Management, 43(4), 1133–1139. Navabi, N., Ghaffari, F., & Jannat-Alipoor, Z. (2016). Older adults’ attitudes and barriers toward the use of mobile phones. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 11, 1371–1378. Nickerson, R., Isaac, H., & Mak, B. (2008). A multi-national study of attitudes about mobile phone use in social settings. IJMC, 6, 541–563. Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(4), 152–159. Oulasvirta, A., Rattenbury, T., Ma, L., & Raita, E. (2012). Habits make smartphone use more pervasive. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16, 105–114. Rainie, L., & Zickuhr, K. (2015). Americans’ views on mobile etiquette. 39. Roh, D., Bhang, S.-Y., Choi, J.-S., Kweon, Y. S., Lee, S.-K., & Potenza, M. N. (2018). The validation of Implicit Association Test measures for smartphone and Internet addiction in at-risk children and adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7(1), 79–87. Serenko, A., & Turel, O. (2018). A Dual-Attitude Model of System Use: The Effect of Explicit and Implicit Attitudes. Information & Management. Turel, O., Serenko, A., & Giles, P. (2011). Integrating Technology Addiction and Use: An Empirical Investigation of Online Auction Users. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1043–1061. JSTOR. Vandendriessche, K., & De Marez, L. (2020). Digimeter 2019. Measuring digital trends in Flanders.


Research In Progress

Exploring Co-Agency in Human-Machine Assemblages: Toward a Methodology for Collective Intelligence Design Authors David Crombie, University for the Arts Utrecht (HKU) Soenke Zehle, Hochschule der Bildenden KĂźnste Saar (HBKsaar)

Abstract The rise of new forms of human-machine collaboration raises questions for living lab methodologies that aim to comprehend machines as elements in complex dynamic systems rather than distinct technological objects. We argue that it makes sense to approach infrastructures integrating human and machinic agency as stacks, building on an existing systems design discourse that already adopts a holistic view of the integration of soft- and hardware as well as dynamic contexts. The goal of this paper is to make the case that such an approach facilitates the creation of new living lab methodologies and encourages actors to reexamine the common sense informing our concepts of human and machinic agency.

Keywords co-creation methodologies, coagency, stack, collective intelligence design, humancomputer interaction, cognitive assemblages, value


Exploring Co-Agency in Human-Machine Assemblages: Toward a Methodology for Collective Intelligence Design “We need not one but many stack design theories.” Benjamin Bratton The rise of new forms of human-machine collaboration raises questions for living lab methodologies that aim to comprehend machines as elements in complex dynamic systems rather than distinct technological objects. We argue that it makes sense to approach infrastructures integrating human and machinic agency as stacks, building on an existing systems design discourse that already adopts a holistic view of the integration of soft- and hardware as well as dynamic contexts. The goal of this paper is to make the case that such an approach facilitates the creation of new living lab methodologies and encourages actors to reexamine the common sense informing our concepts of human and machinic agency. 1. The space of action is changing. Or: Engaging with the emergence of coagency Much of the work across our living lab communities revolves around action: living labs are “do tanks”, they focus on practices of collaboration and co-creation, and when it comes to policy initiatives, a key concern is action-orientation. Because of the centrality of action to these approaches, changes in the way we comprehend agency are highly relevant to what we do - as individual actors in a local living lab community, as researchers engaged in transfer activities, as policy makers committed to seeing real change in the world, as citizens interested in the democratic design of digital societies. We argue that in the emergent age of intelligent machines, the time has come to reengage with the question of agency. A term we more or less have come to take for granted, our individual and collective agency is undergoing a transformation we are only beginning to understand. But it already seems apparent that the more we rely on intelligent machines in the organization of how we communicate, relate and create, the more enmeshed human and machine agency will become - to the extent that we feel it necessary to no longer think of them as separate but as a hybrid form of agency. We use the term “co-agency” to emphasize this interest in the exploration, comprehension, and design of these forms of agency. “We describe as co-agency the combination of human and machinic agency in new socio-technological assemblages.” We know, of course, that all agency is relational - we become who we are, how we think and act, through others, through the web of relations we weave around us over the course of our lives. Whenever we act, these others, through the traces these relations have left, are implicated (“folded into”) and involved (“wrapped up”) in what we do.


Increasingly, machines are part of how this web of relations is woven. Our interest in the regulation of the major players in the platform economy, for instance, does not only arise from concerns regarding market monopolies. To the extent that we allow these platforms to become part of a wide array of our daily gestures, how these platforms operate - the rules of engagement they define through their end user licences, the way they organize our workflows through their user experience design strategies, the incentives they offer to encourage us to participate in the data mining and value creation processes on which their business models are based - affects how we do things. That is to say, they affect who we are and become as we rely more and more on these platforms as de facto enabling environments for whatever it is we do.1 Yet although we act through them, we have very little say in how these logics of operation are defined. Our devices tell us when updates are in order, and once installed, we are confronted with new interfaces. So we adapt, we go with the flow, especially since security concerns have come to convince us that such updates are crucial to our own safety in these online environments. And even if we were to hesitate to play by these rules - there is very little we can do. Other than a collective exodus into the worlds of free software and federated infrastructures, an option we will return to later, in part because it has come to inform official European policy on the role of “technological sovereignty” in the future of innovation, in part because such an exodus has turned out to be quite difficult to organize as its preconditions - data portability, for example - do not yet exist. We think that rather than framing our exploration of emerging technologies in the dichotomous terms of analogue and digital, we think that we need to take seriously the possibility that we must approach these concerns from within our relation with machines. More than a term of analysis, the concept of co-agency offers us a perspective, a point of view from which to explore our situation from within this relation. And if in fact we act through these relational infrastructures, a first step in the exploration of the role they play is to find a way to comprehend them. One way of doing that is to enter the stack. 2. Enter the stack While the power of platforms arises from network effects - people will move to whatever platform promises to best amplify their agency -, we think there is more to


Also see the ILO toolkit on “enabling environments” <>, an approach that does not yet take this co-agency into account. Interested in a more nuanced sense of “environment”, we agree that “[w]e need a bridging motion from congenial humanistic assumptions to difficult explorations of a bewildering array of sciences including evolutionary biology, biochemistry, neuroscience, biophysics, geomorphology, ecology and ethology” (Wendy Wheeler and Louise Westling, “Biosemiotics and culture: introduction”, Green Letters, 19:3 (2015), 215-226, DOI: 10.1080/14688417.2015.1078973); here, we can only gesture toward such a motion.


the story, and we need to look beyond user numbers and market share.2 Instead, we should look at how these platforms exercise their power at the level of infrastructure. Every major platform exercises its power to create markets through a mix of software and hardware standards that effectively structure the kind of agency available in the platform ecosystem. We call this mix “the stack”. For software developers, a stack is a data structure that serves as a collection of elements with two main operations (addition / removal of elements - a “stack overflow error” indicates that no more elements can be added, for instance). For systems designers, a stack can also be a conceptual systems model to characterise and standardise the functions of a communication system. For critical observers of the platform economy like the cultural theorist Benjamin Bratton, the stack is an “accidental megastructure” that also includes the material contexts that allow such a system to operate (example: in the case of mobile communications, such contexts range from mineral mining to satellite networks).3 We use it here in a broader sense: the stack is everything that affects - directly or indirectly - the kind of agency available in a given context. “We describe as the stack the infrastructural principle of operation of a complex dynamic system.” What the stack does is put a set of values in action. We mean this quite literally - the stack is the engine of the value creation models that inform the system in question (example: a principle of limited interoperability restricts potential uses of the data processed by the system - while we are used to taking our mobile number and contacts from one provider to another, you cannot simply move your chat messages and contacts from one messenger to the next as these two practices are subject to different regulations). In the early 21st century, we effectively live in the stack. The “accidental megastructures” (Bratton) of the multiple technological infrastructures and datadriven platforms - the stacks - sustaining our ways of life effectively structure how we relate to ourselves, to each other, and to the world around us. One of the major obstacle to innovation in Europe is that we cannot anticipate a radical redesign of these stacks. A current initiative that is highly relevant to the living lab community and its growing interest in facilitating the creation of data-driven business models is the start of “GAIA-X”, a network to create a federated data infrastructure based on the values of transparency, openness, data protection and security.4 Part of this effort is


Ben Evans, “Would breaking up 'big tech' work? What would?” (2020 / 08 / 10), <> 3

Benjamin H. Bratton, The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty, MIT Press, 2014.



the creation of a “sovereign cloud stack”.5 Its inventors claim that “[w]hat we need today is not just a fresh awareness of data sovereignty, but the IT infrastructure to go along with it, too. We need a whole new open-source infrastructure”.6 So for us, “the stack” is where the rubber of policy (“data sovereignty”) hits the road of structural transformation (“sovereign stack”) to create different innovation ecosystems. By definition, a new stack lays the foundation of new future and emerging technologies. Influential open tech stack models include the OSI and TCP/IP stack, the most influential (market-creating) stacks are those of major platform providers (Airbnb, Amazon, Facebook, Slack, Uber). To address the dominance of these players requires challenging the dominance of these underlying technology stacks.7 We argue that because at the heart of each innovation ecosystem is a technology stack, we need new stacks for a new ecosystem to emerge. “We invite living lab communities to imagine and co-create a new stack for collective intelligence design as an enabling environment to encourage and amplify emerging forms of human-machine collaboration.” We are convinced that it is no longer sufficient to address state, market, and civil society when we engage in worldmaking - we must urgently imagine, address, and design the stack as a separate layer of our collective existence. However, when we, Europe’s citizens, currently look at (technological) innovation, many of us feel like mice in a maze: while the ways in which everyday lives are structured is changing radically, there is no single perspective from which these changes could be comprehended, or whether there is even a way out of the labyrinth. Empowering users to engage in anticipatory technology assessment, we must urgently find ways to comprehend and co-design stacks as assemblages of distributed systems anticipate future forms of co-agency enabled by alternative stacks , and thereby create the conditions for future innovation by creating a collective intelligence design stack. As holistic views of (viable) systems design gain ground, the question of how we might turn the “accidental megastructure” of existing infrastructure stacks into consciously designed collective intelligence architectures has emerged as a key challenge for Europe’s digital societies.8 Our main objective is to inspire the development and 5



One of the most influential network architecture stacks is the seven-layer reference model for Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) developed by the International Organization for Standards and the International Electrotechnical Commission, see <>.


Geoff Mulgan, Big Mind: How Collective Intelligence Can Change Our World, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017.


prototypical implementation of a collective intelligence design stack - a radical break with existing approaches to the design of technological systems to foreground the capacity of systems to amplify our capacity to act as part of collective intelligences. Adopting the principle that such technology stacks are in principle subject to codesign, we invite living lab communities to embark on a series of complementary codesign processes to explore how we might best facilitate the emergence of new forms of co-agency to enable such co-design. The power of innovation lies not in its appearance but its widespread adoption. The prerequisite for such adoption is that the new changes the way we relate to ourselves, to each other, and to the world. The mobile phone still serves as a core example, as it laid the foundation for the redesign of numerous infrastructures, networks, and value chains. But the mobile phone alone is not the technological innovation - what is new is the technology stack of which it is a part and which allows it to create such powerful disruptive effects. And the initial innovation was not a technical object, but the imagination of a world in which communication would be radically decentralized and cut across the boundaries between creation, distribution, and use. We therefore contend that we must open imaginaries to future worldmaking.9 Moving beyond the popular-yet-problematic “design thinking” schema, we invite you to co-create the story and a playbook for such worldmaking. 3. Revisiting Co-Agency: Ethics, Trust, Cooperation As actors in living lab communities and networks, should this interest us to the extent that we learn to “think infrastructure”? Are we calling on all of us to become stack designers? Yes and no - it is more complex than a binary decision, as one would imagine when it comes to agency in complex adaptive systems.10 So let us return to the foundations of what we do, as suggested earlier in our exploration of co-agency. We have been told that the literacies needed in a democratic society - the literacies that ensure we can actually exercise and enjoy the individual and collective agency to which we are constitutionally entitled in many, if not all of the societies covered by the living lab network - will have to be broadened to address the changes these societies are undergoing in the wake of technological transformation, including calls for the


Mark Graham, Rob Kitchin, Shannon Mattern, Joe Shaw, Joe, eds., How to Run a City Like Amazon, and Other Fables. London: Meatspace Press, 2019.


We find the term “human-machine interaction” misleading as it seems to focus on the relationship between one human and one machinic actor, whereas we see a need to engage with cognitive assemblages: “A cognitive assemblage emphasizes the flow of information through a system and the choices and decisions that create, modify, and interpret the flow. While a cognitive assemblage may include material agents and forces (and almost always does so), it is the cognizers within the assemblage that enlist these affordances and direct their powers to act in complex situations”, N. Katherine Hayles, Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017, 169.


“citizen coder” (a term that arose about a decade ago, it now resonates with related ideas such as “citizen science”). While we emphatically embrace this idea (coding teaches logic, after all), we also want to suggest that we need something like an “infrastructural literacy” that extend such literacies to the systems. The suggestion to think “co-agency” is part of such an effort. This is not as new as it seems. Citizens have long been engaging with technological transformation on multiple levels, the current exploration of mobile network strategies (witness the skepticism regarding the deployment of 5G technologies) can be reconnected to a long history of critical technology assessments. These have already been developed into pragmatic “Constructive Technology Assessments, and we make the case that these methods can and should be developed even further to allow “anticipatory technology assessment”.11 Ethics is the field where we currently attempt to imagine how these developments might best be governed, with limited success - unease regarding the proposed integration of “ecosystems of excellence” and “ecosystems of trust” is palpable on every page of the EU’s recent policy documents.12 And yet we seem to miss something fundamental: we need to safeguard not only our individual human agency but our ability to co-exist in a new generation of collective intelligences that radically alter our understanding of the ways in which humans and machines collaborate. When pioneers of ubiquitous computing such as Mark Weiser refer to the key role of implicit knowledges, they point us to the limits of “making things public” and in fact of openness as master paradigm, stressing the need for new types of coagency interfaces to mobilize such knowledges.13 We can draw on these historical anticipations of a tech stack that would be so comprehensive as to become invisible to create the prototype of such an interface. Today, we urgently need to revisit such optimism regarding the symbiosis of human and machinic agency to better anticipate the consequences of the radical redesign of human agency


Johan Schot and Arie Rip, “The Past and Future of Constructive Technology Assessment”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54 (1997), pp. 251-66; Roberto Poli and Marco Valerio, Marco, eds., Anticipation, Agency and Complexity, Heidelberg: Springer, 2019. We have been discussing such efforts in the context of the anticipate network, a multidisciplinary research effort to integrate anticipation approaches from the arts, technology studies, and the social sciences and humanities to create anticipatory scenarios involving a wide array of stakeholders in foresighting activities <>. 12

EC, “On Artificial Intelligence -A European approach to excellence and trust”, White Paper. Brussels: EC, 2020, <> 13

Mark Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century”, Scientific American (September 1991); also see Adam Greenfield, Radical technologies: the design of everyday life. New York, NY: Verso Books, 2017.


Europe’s digital societies have effectively engaged in through their comprehensive digital agendas.14 The dominant approach to “black box” technologies whose “internal” workings are difficult to comprehend and govern is to “open” these boxes - the vocabulary of openness, transparency, and visibility informs our approaches to accountability and in fact our narratives of democratic governance. We suggest approaching the stack as an assemblage that cannot be “opened” in its entirety - not because of ill-will or lack of resolve, but because the stack is not a technological object or dynamic that can be observed from any single vantage point. Once we adopt “co-agency” as analytical perspective, we can develop this further since what we need are distributed points of view to explore distributed systems. Which is why we make the case to shift our focus from agency to co-agency to better comprehend the extent to which human and machinic agency already affect one another. We wish to start another, more complex innovation narrative - through activities across the living lab network that make tangible how we might come to terms and take advantage of the contexts of distributed socio-technological systems for future innovation. We also contend that only ambitious visions create space for breakthrough innovation. The vision of a collective intelligence design stack is such a vision - we know that the development of a complete stack is an incredibly ambitious goal and is likely to involve much more than a single technology research project. At the same time, we believe that this vision opens up a new kind of technology design conversation that can actually address and engage with the radicality of the current change in human-machine relations. The realization that “humans are no longer the only symbolic cognizers on the planet, and indeed not necessarily the most powerful” (N. Katherine Hayles) is seen by many European citizens not as an opportunity but a humiliation, calling into question the central role of the human in our views of the future. We see something else - a notion of freedom that arises from the acknowledgment of the necessarily limited scope of human agency, and an optimistic view of a new relationalism that focuses on the role (natural and machinic) environments play in new forms of co-agency. Resolutely committing itself to a perspective that places human and non-human actors on the same playing field to anticipate future forms of co-agency, we therefore embrace both the sense of opportunity and a humble view of human agency. Our argument is inspired by a vision of the technology stacks structuring and sustaining our agency as harboring the potential for enormous mutual empowerment. Given that the rapid pace of technological transformation is met with a complex nexus


Riel Miller, Riel, ed., Transforming the future: anticipation in the 21st centur, Paris. UNESCO, 2019.


of negative effects across Europe (anxiety, exhaustion, fear, insecurity, disengagement from political processes), such optimism carries significant risks because it may be considered to entrench rather than exit from the technologycentrisms of Europe’s innovation agenda. But the collaboration strategies we hope to develop are meant to inspire trust in such a co-creation process - knowing that the lack of trust in such complex systems design processes (and in the ability of policymakers effectively to govern them) are among the biggest obstacles to innovation. 4. New Approaches to Co-Creation and Innovation Governance To set up a co-creation framework, we propose the following three research vectors to facilitate the definition of new living lab methodologies for such an effort: 4.1. Investigate Collective Intelligence Design as Key Enabling Technology to safeguard not only our individual human agency but our ability to co-exist in a new generation of collective intelligences that radically alter our understanding of the ways in which humans and machines collaborate. 4.2. Explore Emerging Forms of Human-Machine Interaction to fundamentally reevaluate our ideas of human-machine interaction. Rather than assuming that the primary relationship to be comprehended and designed is that between an individual user and their machine, we shift the focus to new collective intelligences - the vast human-machine assemblages powered by artificial, augmented, and distributed intelligences - to anticipate new forms of co-agency they make possible. 4.3. Provide a Prototypical Implementation of the Collective Intelligence Design Stack. Using (for instance) the seven-layer OSI model for stack development as a general reference dynamic, we can design a stack prototype and make it available as an open stack to facilitate widespread adoption and reuse across living lab communities. If Europe is aiming at “technological sovereignty”, future ecosystems for products and services must be based on alternative technology stacks.15 Additionally, such alternative stacks must be capable of sustaining an expanding spectrum of valuecreating activities - the sharing economy and the return of “public value” are evidence of a broader transformation of value and the markets designed to facilitate the generation and distribution of such value.16



Mariana Mazzucato, “Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth”, Brussels: EC DG Research and Innovation, 2018, <>


These developments are also indicative of a fundamental shift in how we comprehend, approach, and ultimately govern innovation - we know now that even technological innovation is never simply “technological” but depends on a wide array of other (cultural, political, social) innovations. If Europe intends to benefit from the emergence of new forms of (public) value, it must embrace a more holistic view of how such value is generated.17 We invite living lab communities to make an important initial contribution to such an alternative innovation infrastructure by focusing on a collective intelligence design stack and find ways to effectively combine technological and nontechnological innovation. As of today, high-level research on collective intelligence design (CID) is centered outside of Europe and the EIT has yet to initiate major innovation dynamics to engage with this emerging research field. And while the field of CID has matured across Europe, it lacks an integrative dynamic to expand and scale such efforts.18 We contend that defining and prototyping a CID stack will give these developments a substantial push and serve as a common technological core of future innovation efforts. Hoping to mobilize interest from across living lab communities, we aim to contribute through such a collaborative effort to the creation of robust technology assessment frameworks, design guidelines, and criteria for assessment and certification. This will allow us to critically address the limits of conventional innovation narratives, whose narrow “plots” are reinforced by the logic of venture capital looking for “singular” and “disruptive” rather than systems-based forms of innovation, even though only the latter build innovation ecosystems. 5. Outlook: Exploring the Future of Value The aim of all innovation is the creation of value. We believe that innovation methods must prioritize the comprehension of value to best assist users in future value-creating activities. The distribution of technological systems - the stack - radically changes how value is created and the meaning of value itself. If we think innovation beyond technology-based products and services to engage with the full spectrum of cultural, economic, and social innovation, it becomes clear that value is not only realized through markets but across a wide field of human activity.19


Caroline Criado Perez, Invisible Women, London: Chatto & Windus, 2019.


One indicator of the growing interest in the field is the recent launch of a research journal dedicated to collective intelligence 19

Brian Massumi, 99 Theses on the Revaluation of Value, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2018


The digital transformation has already made every EU citizen aware that digital objects can be both used and shared, upsetting traditional value chains across all of Europe’s industries. These shareable assets may be temporarily protected by IP, but the exclusiveness of use assumed by IP is part of a limited innovation narrative that cannot address the co-existence of multiple, overlapping, and incommensurable values. The return of “public” value as a concern is a symptom of the exhaustion of this well-established view of innovation, as is the emergence of new economies where users are both consumers and creators. In its focus on a new stack, we wish to bring future innovation actors into play whose capacity for co-creation we have not even begun to explore - but cannot afford to ignore.


Practitioner Presentations

Finding citizen insights: A digital deep dive into everyday life in Smart Kalasatama Authors Mette Hiltunen, Forum Virium Helsinki Michel Nader SayĂşn, Forum Virium Helsinki / Aalto University

Abstract In urban living labs, active citizen engagement is in the center of any citizen-centric innovation. In Smart Kalasatama, the smart district of Helsinki, a six-week digital deep dive study with seven local households was conducted in the spring of 2020. By using the software Miro as a platform for online collaboration between the interviewer and interviewees, visual digital boards were prepared to support the weekly interviews and were used to collect detailed qualitative insights about the participants’ everyday experiences and observations of services, activities and smart solutions piloted and implemented in Kalasatama urban living lab. Digital tools were found to be an effective approach to engage citizens as they allowed diverse participation and a deeper reflection while requiring less effort in data analysis compared to traditional participatory research methods. The deep dive study can be replicated and applied to other living lab and citizen-centric innovation activities in the future.

Key words: citizen engagement, citizen-centric innovation, digital participation, participatory methods, urban living labs, smart cities, inclusivity


Active citizen participation is the cornerstone of collaborative innovation networks in cities (e.g. Leminen, 2015). However, one identified challenge in living labs is to ensure participation of diverse groups: failing in inclusivity biases results for citizencentric innovation (Spilling, Rinne & Hämäläinen, 2019). In Smart Kalasatama, the smart district of Helsinki, citizen engagement is central to living lab activities following the public-private-people partnership model. Over five years, the need for evaluating solutions and services piloted in the area for a smarter and sustainable everyday life, has been growing. Therefore, a deep dive study with local residents was conducted in the spring of 2020 as a part of a comprehensive impact evaluation. The study allowed experimenting with new digital approaches for future citizen-centric activities.

Engaging the residents of Kalasatama The deep dive was launched with an online residents’ survey addressing the main themes of Smart Kalasatama: service provision, interaction with smart solutions, energy efficiency, sustainability, urban planning and participation. From 183 respondents, seven households were recruited for a vertical study to find qualitative insights on the influence of smart solutions in their everyday life. The households represented diversity with different age groups, minorities, incomes and social backgrounds. The study included six 30-minute weekly meetings and online activities with each household totaling to 42 sessions. Visual digital boards were prepared for each interview with the software Miro, an online collaborative platform allowing multiple users to work on a shared space simultaneously (Figure 1). Sessions were opened with a video call to build a personal relationship with the participants and to provide connection during online collaboration. Interview data was documented on Miro and complemented with notes on a research journal. The participants also provided images, videos and drawings from their living environments.


Figure 1: One of the participatory interview activities involved mapping out the participants’ daily routes, use of recreational green areas, perceptions of safety, and activities in public and private spaces around Kalasatama together with the interviewer.

Methodological reflections from the deep dive Besides providing valuable insights on Smart Kalasatama’s initiatives from residents’ perspective, the study showed that digital tools are an effective method for gaining rich qualitative data. Collaboration in a digital space prompted insightful reflections about participants’ experiences and observations and let them review and influence the interview content, collaboratively prepare answers with other household members, and clarify ambiguities to broaden the interviewer’s


understanding. The study also showed, contrary to prior expectations, that senior residents used digital tools fluently and appreciated the participation opportunity. It should, however, be mentioned that although most Kalasatama residents are highly interested in decision-making in their district, most deep dive participants were considered active citizens – a minority of citizens frequently participating in communal activities, voicing opinions through social media and giving feedback on city services. We require further examination on stronger inclusivity towards less active residents in the future. Digital tools allowed diverse participation and a deeper reflection while requiring less effort in data analysis than traditional participatory methods. According to feedback, the approach was not perceived as invasive or too high-commitment. This study encourages applying digital participation methods in the future activities of Smart Kalasatama to ensure citizen-centric innovation, and the process can be replicated by other living labs to engage a larger citizen pool as co-creators.

References Leminen, S. 2015. Living Labs as Open Innovation Networks – Networks, Roles and Innovation Outcomes. Doctoral dissertation. Aalto University. Spilling, K, Rinne, J. & Hämäläinen, M. 2019. Agile piloting for smarter cities: 3 cases of engaging ecosystems and communities in co-creation. Proceedings of the Open Living Lab Days Conference 2019, pp. 28-40. European Network of Living Labs.


NeuralRope#1: an urban collaborative project between art and scientific research

DIGITAL LIVING LAB DAYS CALL: Innovation presentation Topic: Tools & technologies for user-centric innovation

Practitioner Presentation by: L*3 - Lugano Living Lab, the urban lab of the City of Lugano, Switzerland in partnership with USI-UniversitĂ della Svizzera italiana. Member of ENOLL from September 2019 Website: Email:

Authors: Elena Marchiori, Scientific collaborator at Lugano Living Lab - City of Lugano, Switzerland Luca Maria Gambardella, Professor at USI-UniversitĂ della Svizzera italiana and Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence (USI-SUPSI)


Abstract On










"NeuralRope#1 Inside an Artificial Brain� located at the pedestrian tunnel in Besso-Lugano, Switzerland has been freely opened to the public. "NeuralRope#1� is an initiative of L*3 - Lugano Living Lab which facilitated the creation of this collaborative work between institutions (City of Lugano and local universities), the local artist Alex Dorici, and the scientist prof. Luca Maria Gambardella from IDSIA (Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence, USI-SUPSI). "NeuralRope#1" represents an artificial neuronal network installed in the Besso pedestrian tunnel (length of the tunnel: 100 metres). The installation reproduces in three dimensions a large neural network using several LED screens, which are constantly operating 24/7. The installation interact through cameras with people who are walking through the tunnel. NeuralRope#1 represents a best practice of profitable collaboration between institutions, art and scientific research. Indeed, it demonstrates the opportunities to use public spaces which combine urban art and informal learning solutions. NeuralRope#1 represents a valid informal learning solution to present to public what is Artificial Intelligence and how it works. NeuralRope#1 learns from humans to interpret autonomously the environment that surrounds it. Lugano Living Lab played a crucial role in facilitating all the actors involved in the project and its development. At the same time by ensuring the openness of the project in terms of accessibility, understating, dissemination and open data. More info about the project:

Key words: collaborative project, urban art, living lab, public space, informal learning, artificial intelligence


Submission details The main problem statement How institutions, art and scientific research can cooperate to use public spaces as opportunities for urban art and informal learning solutions to communicate digital-related topics to citizens.

Approach On










"NeuralRope#1. Inside an Artificial Brain� located at the pedestrian tunnel in Besso-Lugano, Switzerland has been freely opened to the public. "NeuralRope#1� is an initiative of L*3 - Lugano Living Lab which facilitated the creation of this collaborative work between institutions (City of Lugano and local universities), the local artist Alex Dorici, and the scientist prof. Luca Maria Gambardella from IDSIA (Istituto Dalle Molle di Studi sull'Intelligenza Artificiale, USI-SUPSI). "NeuralRope#1" represents an artificial neuronal network installed in the Besso pedestrian tunnel (length of the tunnel: 100 metres). The installation reproduces in three dimensions a large neural network using several LED screens, which are constantly operating 24/7. The installation interact through cameras with people who are walking through the tunnel.


The 16 LED screens represent “neurons” of the “artificial brain” while the 700m fluorescent naval ropes evoke “axons” and “synapses”, simulating the propagation of nerve impulses between one neuron and another. In "NeuralRope#1” the artificial neuronal network is taught to distinguish shapes made with manual gestures of several simple objects shapes such as triangles, squares, hearts, likes and dislikes. The network, initially trained in a laboratory setting, acquires new inputs by observing people interactions with the cameras positioned at the beginning of the tunnel. While learning from the interactions, the neural network processes the information and modifies its axons and synapses accordingly. As a result of an interaction between a user and NeuralRope#1, the screens installed at the tunnel display in real time the internal states of the neural networks and show what it has recognized (whether a triangle or a square or a heart, etc.) as represented in the perceived image. For privacy reasons no interaction images are stored in the system.

Outcomes NeuralRope#1 is currently operating from Sept. 2nd. 2019. It is constantly evolving: during the day it “reasons” and interacts with people, and at night it “dreams” (processes) according to what it has seen. From Sept. 2nd 2019 to April 8th 2020 it has been recorded 75’059 interactions done by users with the cameras of NeuralRope#1.


Current studies on artificial intelligence and how to study interactions between artificial agents and humans using the case of NeuralRope#1 are under research.

Lessons learned / why is this presentation of interest for the public? NeuralRope#1 represents a best practice of profitable collaboration between institutions, art and scientific research. Indeed, it demonstrates the opportunities to use public spaces which combine urban art and informal learning solutions. NeuralRope#1 represents a valid informal learning solution to present to public what is Artificial Intelligence and how it works. NeuralRope#1 learns from humans to interpret autonomously the environment that surrounds it. Lugano Living Lab played a crucial role in facilitating all the actors involved in the project and its development. At the same time by ensuring the openness of the project in terms of accessibility, understating, dissemination and open data.

Several implications emerged from the project NeuralRope#1: - enhancement of local urban art: it raises the opportunities of local urban artists to use such open space as an expression of the society and the local urban art communities;

- citizen engagement: outcomes so far revealed how this installation created engagement with citizens and visitors. Users of the tunnel appeared to be keen to interact with the digital installation. The collection of data (that is: recording of


numerical combinations of the interactions) provides insights on how people interact with objects in public spaces.

- connection with didactic activities: NeuralRope#1 is currently used to promote what is Artificial Intelligence by schools;

- open data: data generated by NeuralRope#1 are shared as open data through both the L*3 website and the Swiss Open Government data portal. The case of NeuralRope#1 has been recently used during the 2020 edition of the Swiss Open Cultural Data Hackathon, supporting the sharing of cultural data; - acceptance: in almost a year of operations of NeuralRope#1 as an installation which is open to the public, no acts of vandalism have been recorded and/or dissemination of negative coverage about this initiative; - re-evaluation of a public site: the installation helped to re-evaluate a public site giving a new social meaning as a place for new social activities, such as parties, temporary exhibitions, public open lectures at the tunnel, escape rooms, etc. - tourism: NeuralRope#1 becomes a new tourism attraction promoted by the official tourism institution, Lugano Region:


- place branding: NeuralRope#1 becomes the new key story to brand urban art in Lugano. In particular, it is promoted nationally by the federal Swiss Destination Management Organization, Switzerland Tourism, among the new urban art projects in the Canton Ticino, Switzerland:

- project in line with the digital strategy of the City of Lugano and at national level: the project represents a valid aid for the implementation of the digital strategy goals of the City of Lugano and of the Federal Council, among which there











NeuralRope#1 has been also a location for hosting the participation of the City of Lugano at the Federal Digital Swiss conference on Sept. 2nd 2019.

Neuralrope#1 Project details:


Doctoral Consortium Paper

Exploring lab-driven innovation processes in experience-based tourism Author Yati Nord University Business School – Bodø, Norway

Abstract This PhD study aims to contribute to a better understanding of the lab-driven innovation processes in experience-based tourism, food, and culture. The overall research question is: How can labs drive innovation processes in experience-based sectors and what are the benefits and challenges? To answer the question, the study will focus on the conceptualization, tools, facilities, facilitators, and utilization of the labs in experience designs. There are two main theoretical frameworks in this study, one is the innovation process theory, including experience and sustainable innovation, and the other one is the literature about labs for innovation. The hermeneutic explorative multi-case study design with qualitative data collection will be employed to explore the lab cases in this study. Lastly, this PhD study will result in an article-based dissertation, with four planned articles plus one umbrella article outlined.

Key words: experience innovation, experience-based tourism, lab-driven innovation, innovation labs, living labs


1. Background To survive and grow, tourism firms must innovate (Sundbo et al., 2007) and gain competitive advantages (Tidd et al., 2005). Thus, tourism firms seek to create memorable experiences that add value (Sternberg, 1997). In the innovation process in some sectors, firms usually apply different approaches, such as open innovation, social computing, and living labs (Pascu and van Lieshout, 2009). Lab-driven (or laboratory- driven) innovation processes, such as in living labs, have the potential to facilitate innovation while involving different stakeholders. In the tourism industry, by involving tourists in the lab-driven innovation process, it will help the tourist service providers to design the experiences that are specific to the targeted segments (Guimont and Lapointe, 2016). This is especially important for the majorly small or even micro experience-based tourism firms, as they have limited recourses and time. However, the research on experience innovation is rather young and highly fragmented (Sundbo et al., 2013, Jernsand et al., 2015), particularly in the lab-driven innovation process related to tourism, food, and cultural experiences.

2. Research objective As the lab approach in experience innovation is in a very premature stage, this PhD study aims to gain a deeper understanding of lab-driven innovation processes, especially related to tourism, food, and cultural experiences. Also, labs are seldom used in experience-based tourism. Thus, this project aims to explore the conceptualization, testing, and the potential use of the lab concepts in facilitating sustainable innovation within experience-based tourism, food, and culture. Besides practical contribution, this study also aims to contribute to the theory of innovation, particularly in lab-driven innovation processes.

3. Overall research question The overall research question of this study is: How can labs drive innovation processes in experience-based sectors and what are the benefits and challenges? To answer this question, three more detailed research questions that address the research gaps are as follow: 1. What lab concepts are used for innovation of experience-based products in tourism (food/meals and culture)? 2. What methods/tools and facilitator roles are needed in developing the labs for innovation/ development, and what problems and potentials can be solved with them? 3. What are the benefits and challenges of lab-driven innovation of experiencebased products (food/meals and culture)?


4. Theoretical framework The contribution of the tourism industry undoubtedly comes from the sales of accommodation rentals, food, transportation services, admission tickets, and souvenirs (Sternberg, 1997). However, according to Sternberg (1997, p. 951), tourists purchase those products as they are seeking for something more valuable, the ‘touristic experience’. Thus, the market value of a tourism product relies on the proficiency of the firm in designing, packaging, and delivering the experience (Sternberg, 1997). Similarly, Pine and Gilmore (1998) also suggest that experiences present more value to customers than services. Tourism experiences can be defined as “an individual’s subjective evaluation and undergoing (i.e., affective, cognitive, and behavioral) of events related to his/her tourist activities which begin before (i.e., planning and preparation), during (i.e., at the destination), and after the trip (i.e., recollection)’’ (Tung and Ritchie, 2011, p. 1369). This study focuses on the experience as a core product (primary experience sector), as opposed to the addition to the product/service (secondary experience sector) (Sundbo and Hagedorn-Rasmussen, 2008). Primary experience sector include but not limited to travel agencies, restaurants, cinema, museums, theaters, amusement parks, and nature-based tourism (Hoarau-Heemstra and Eide, 2019, Sundbo and Sørensen, 2013). As tourism firms operate in a highly competitive sector that demands continuous transformation, it is imperative to innovate (Sundbo et al., 2007). Sundbo et al. (2013) point out the characteristics of experience innovation as commonly decided by the management, often user-based, implies the involvement of employees, and highly affected by technological innovations. However, as Hjalager (2010) suggests, innovation research in tourism is still in early development, where topics are increasingly presented in theory and supported by empirical data. Similarly, more research is needed in the experience innovation field (Sundbo, 2009), including innovation in food, cultural, and tourism experience products. Innovation is viewed as an interactive process that: (i) includes many actors and expands over time; (ii) begins with blending components of existing knowledge and ends with new knowledge as a significant result (Lundvall, 2013). In the innovation processes, firms use many different approaches or methodologies. Nesta (in the blog written by Leurs (2018)), an innovation foundation based in the United Kingdom, mapped different innovation approaches into four spaces according to the focuses of innovation: intelligence, solution, technology, and talent. Some approaches (for example open innovation, design thinking, service design, living labs) are the combination of all four focuses (Leurs, 2018). There are different concepts of labs for innovation or lab-driven innovation processes, such as fab-labs, skunkworks, makerspaces, hackathons, and living labs (see: Wolf et al., 2014, Brown, 2004, Smith, 2017, Fuzi et al., 2018, Lara and


Lockwood, 2016). However, the most discussed lab concept in the tourism field is the living lab concept. The European Network of Living Labs defines a Living Lab as “an open innovation environment in real-life settings in which user-driven innovation is the co-creation process for new services, products, and societal infrastructures. Living Labs encompass societal and technological dimensions simultaneously in a business-citizens-government-academia partnership” (as cited in Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbröst, 2009, p. 357). Nevertheless, there are few empirical and comparative studies that emphasize the benefits of living labs, and most literature is merely descriptive (Schuurman et al., 2015). Furthermore, there are still very few studies that discuss the conceptualization, facilitation, and utilization of innovation lab concepts in experience-based tourism.

5. Research methods This study will utilize a qualitative multi-case study design. The cases will be compared and examined together. The cases that will be studied are chosen by using sets of criteria that will ensure the richness, variety, and the opportunity to learn about the lab-driven innovation processes. For this study, there are six chosen lab cases situated in different locations, mainly in Nordland county (Norway), and each lab has different problems and opportunities to solve, with different stakeholders involved. The sampling strategy within the cases is purposive/strategic sampling, with a maximum variation strategy that determines the criteria for selecting different participants and locations. Next, the data collection will be done by conducting semi-structured interviews and observations, with the researcher as participant-as-observer in one case and nonparticipant observer in other cases. In addition, ethical considerations will be included in the data collection process. After data collection, within-case and crosscase analyses will be conducted. The data analysis process will follow the seven main stages proposed by Easterby-Smith et al. (2012). In addition, more specific methods, such as Gioia methodology will be considered. Lastly, triangulation will be done to ensure the validity of the study.

6. Dissemination plan and results to date This PhD study will result in an article-based dissertation, with four planned articles plus one umbrella article outlined. The four planned papers are as follow: 1. Labs for innovation in tourism. (systematic review, in the writing process). Results: This literature review confirms that the most used lab concept in tourism is the living lab concept. The paper also presents the characteristics and critical factors of the labs for innovation in tourism. 2. Facilitation and facilitator roles in the lab-driven innovation process in experience-based tourism. (Qualitative case study, in early writing and data collection process). Early findings: The study shows that the facilitation roles of the labs for innovation in tourism are similar to the roles of innovation intermediaries in


other sectors. The study also tentatively concludes that engagement and active involvement of the participants is important in the facilitation of the labs. 3. Methods and tools in labs for (sustainable) experience innovation. (Qualitative case study, not started yet). 4. Innovation modes/patterns and embeddedness when involving labs: opportunities and challenges. (Qualitative case study, not started yet).

References BERGVALL-KÅREBORN, B. & STÅHLBRÖST, A. 2009. Living lab: an open and citizencentric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1, 356-370. BROWN, T. E. 2004. Skunk works: A sign of failure, a sign of hope. Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture: The interaction between technology, progress and economic growth. EASTERBY-SMITH, M., THORPE, R. & JACKSON, P. R. 2012. Management research, Sage. FUZI, A., GRYSZKIEWICZ, L. & SIKORA, D. 2018. Urban innovation labs, hubs, coworking spaces… Which one to choose to boost your innovation? Available from: GUIMONT, D. & LAPOINTE, D. 2016. Empowering local tourism providers to innovate through a living lab process: Does scale matter? Technology Innovation Management Review, 6. HJALAGER, A.-M. 2010. A review of innovation research in tourism. Tourism Management, 31, 1-12. HOARAU-HEEMSTRA, H. & EIDE, D. 2019. Values and concern: Drivers of innovation in experience-based tourism. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 19, 15-26. JERNSAND, E. M., KRAFF, H. & MOSSBERG, L. 2015. Tourism experience innovation through design. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 15, 98-119. LARA, M. & LOCKWOOD, K. 2016. Hackathons as Community-Based Learning: a Case Study. TechTrends, 60, 486-495. LEURS, B. 2018. Landscape of innovation approaches. Available from: LUNDVALL, B.-Å. 2013. Innovation studies: A personal interpretation of the state of the art. Innovation studies: evolution future challenges. PASCU, C. & VAN LIESHOUT, M. 2009. User-led, citizen innovation at the interface of services. info, 11, 82-96. PINE, B. J. & GILMORE, J. H. 1998. Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard business review, 76, 97-105. SCHUURMAN, D., DE MAREZ, L. & BALLON, P. Living Labs: a systematic literature review. Open Living Lab Days 2015, 2015. SMITH, A. 2017. Social innovation, democracy and makerspaces. STERNBERG, E. 1997. The iconography of the tourism experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 951-969. SUNDBO, J. 2009. Innovation in the experience economy: a taxonomy of innovation organisations. The Service Industries Journal, 29, 431-455.


SUNDBO, J. & HAGEDORN-RASMUSSEN, P. 2008. The backstaging of experience production. Creating experiences in the experience economy, 83-110. SUNDBO, J., ORFILA-SINTES, F. & SØRENSEN, F. 2007. The innovative behaviour of tourism firms—Comparative studies of Denmark and Spain. Research policy, 36, 88106. SUNDBO, J. & SØRENSEN, F. 2013. Handbook on the experience economy, Cheltenham, Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Pub. Ltd. SUNDBO, J., SØRENSEN, F. & FUGLSANG, L. 2013. Innovation in the experience sector. Handbook on the experience economy. Edward Elgar Publishing. TIDD, J., BESSANT, J. & PAVITT, K. 2005. Managing innovation integrating technological, market and organizational change, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. TUNG, V. W. S. & RITCHIE, J. B. 2011. Exploring the essence of memorable tourism experiences. Annals of tourism research, 38, 1367-1386. WOLF, P., TROXLER, P., KOCHER, P.-Y., HARBOE, J. & GAUDENZ, U. 2014. Sharing is sparing: open knowledge sharing in Fab Labs. Journal of peer production, 5, 1-11.


Doctoral Consortium

Urban Living Labs – ULL: Sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems from the perspective of the circular economy

Author Diego Hernando Florez Ayala

Abstract Based on agenda 2030, it is considered that the United Nations, the cities, and metropolitan areas are powerhouses of economic growth - contributing about 60 percent of global GDP. However, they also account for about 70 percent of global carbon emissions and over 60 percent of resource use. As a consequence, rapid urbanization results in a growing number of slum dwellers, inadequate and overburdened infrastructure and services, worsening air pollution, and unplanned urban sprawl. Based on the above context, it is believed that the Urban Living Labs (ULL) are configured as potential sustainability transitions for city-systems' innovation from the perspective of a circular economy. Based on this statement, the question is, how the factors that have characterized ULL can be configured as potential sustainability transitions for the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular economy? This research aims to assess the factors that have characterized ULL as potential sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular


economy. To attain this research purpose, a qualitative Netnography will be applied as the methodology for data collection and data analysis. Content analysis will be used for data analysis. As a result, it is expected that the identified activities and projects of the ULL investigated in this study may contribute to identifying sustainability transitions as the potential to build a circular city system.

Key words: Urban Living Labs. Sustainability Transitions. Circular Economy. Netnography. QCA

Disciplines: Urban Management PhD starting date: 2019 PhD Supervisor: Anete Alberton


Introduction Cities play a dominant role in global consumption, production, and pollution. And they are associated with some big problems like air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and poverty. Cities produce three-quarters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; they're home to well over 50 percent of the world's population right now. By the end of this century, that proportion will rise to around 75 percent (McCormick, Anderberg, Coenen, & Neij, 2013; Voytenko, McCormick, Evans, & Schliwa, 2016; Koop & van Leeuwen, 2017). These themes intrinsically are included in the goals of Sustainable Development Goals - SDG 11, as well as planning and increasing resilience of human settlements, taking into account the different needs of rural, peri-urban, and urban areas. Sustainable cities are resilient cities that can adapt to, mitigate, and promote economic, social, and environmental change. Urban living labs (ULLs) are progressive as an explicit form of intervention delivering sustainability goals for cities. ULLs can be even defined as an ecosystem for "innovations. They are useful spaces to developing new products and services, applying methods to that people participate into the development process as users and co-creators, to explore, examine, experiment, test and evaluate new ideas, scenarios, processes, systems, concepts and creative solutions in complex and real contexts" (Bulkeley et al., 2017). Additionally, (Voytenko et al., 2016) say that ULLs constitute a way of experiential governance whereby stakeholders developed and test new products, services and techniques of living to address the challenges of sustainability. In cities, ULLs may work as networks that integrate both user-centered research and open innovations. For funding bodies and governments, they offer a way to encourage cities to adopt innovative solutions. The ULLs are considered spaces to facilitate experimentations







Frantzeskaki, & Coenen, 2019). Furthermore, ULLs could work as bridging transitions to self-organize the stakeholders to co-create an innovative city system (ChronĂŠer, StĂĽhlbrĂśst, & Habibipour, 2018).


Besides, Von Wirth, Fuenfschilling, Frantzeskaki, van Steenbergen, & Stedman (2018, p.230) say that "it is largely unstudied whether and how interventions through ULL contribute to sustainability transitions, what is the distinctiveness of ULL as a means of governing sustainability transitions?". Based on these authors' assumptions, it is assumed that urban living labs can work as tools to help cities to become sustainable. It is believed that sustainability transitions explore the perspective, approaches, and researches that can address these issues. In this perspective, Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, & Avelino (2017) explain that sustainability transitions are progressively used to refer to large-scale societal changes deemed necessary to solve "grand societal challenges." Furthermore, (Markard, 2017) argues that sustainability transitions research focuses on significant transformations of established sectors such as energy, food, mobility, waste, water, etc., associated with industries, technologies, lifestyles, and business models. Thus, based on this understanding, making cities more sustainable is crucially important. Conversely, sustainability transitions are understood as an emerging field of research that focuses on several sectors such as energy, industry, education, social inclusion, governance, etc. that linked with significant sustainability challenges (Markard, 2017). Therefore, a transition is comprehended as system innovations between distinctive socio-technical configurations involving new technologies and corresponding changes in markets, user practices, policy, cultural discourses, and governing institutions (Coenen, Benneworth, & Truffer, 2012). Thus, sustainability transitions are socio-technical transitions that are associated with sustainability targets. In other words, sustainability transitions can be viewed as responses to grand sustainability challenges. In this line, when understanding that sustainability transitions (in the exploration for sustainable city systems) can be developed through ULLs and that they are anchored in the circular economy's logic. Hence, here, the Circular Economy (CE) is defined as an industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. (Lewandowski, 2016). As such, the author supports that CE has become a new vision of usage of resources, energy, value creation, and entrepreneurship that has evolved progressively.


Seminars, research, products, services, and system changes from ecology, systems thinking, and environmental economics have contributed to its foundations (Prendeville, Cherim, & Bocken, 2018). According to Lewandowski (2016), CE's main principles approach is: a design for reuse, build resilience through diversity, rely on energy from renewable sources, think in systems, and shared values. As can be observed, the research question to be addressed here involves three main concepts: ULL, Sustainability transitions, and CE that are intertwined, meaning that they feed each other. Based on this understanding, it can be stated that ULLs have rapidly emerged as a governance tool to drive sustainable development. The ULLs may function as a bridge-builder, which sets the Thesis for this study: ULLs work as potential builders of sustainability transitions for city-systems' innovation from the perspective of the circular economy. Based on this premise, the thesis research question is: How the factors that have characterized Urban Living Labs - ULLs can be configured as potential sustainability transitions for the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular economy? Its main goal is to assess the factors that have characterized ULLs as potential sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular economy. In this thesis journey, three subsidiary goals will be pursed as follow: SG1: to characterize how ULLs work through sustainability transitions to build sustainable cities systems based on the circular economy. SG2: To highlight situations/artifacts found in the ULLs digital environments that are configured as sustainability transitions from the perspective of innovation in city systems. SG3: To Relate the findings from the digital ecosystems of the researched ULLs to the logic of the circular economy. Finally, the next sessions present its Theoretical Framework, its Research Methods, its Preliminary results and discussion, final considerations, and references.


1. Theoretical Framework In this consortium paper, the goal is to assess the factors that have characterized ULLs as potential sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular economy. In this sense, three major theoretical concepts will be explored in this session. First of all, Urban living labs. Second of all, sustainability transitions, and Lastly, Circular Economy in cities. Practice Theory would be this thesis foundation theoretical approach. It emanates from a desire to move beyond dominant dualisms, such as the structure– actor opposition in sociology, but the endeavors differ between disciplines, and the theories are heterogeneous (Røpke, 2009).In addition, Shove & Walker (2010) say that practice theory refers to forms of practical know-how, routines and expectations, that sustain part of incumbent regimes, the driving interest in how these arrangements configure the conditions the innovations of the future. Additionally, Jensen (2017) explains that what lies behind thinking something, such as performing a practice, is what creates the link between what people do and the rest of any given social-material system. The concept of living lab to Hossain, Leminen, & Westerlund (2019), is a physical or virtual space whose purpose is to overcome common social significant challenges, especially for urban systems. Through a ULL, the idea is to gather several stakeholders to idealize it collaboratively and collectively. In the same perspective, Chronéer et al. (2018) explain that a Living lab is one way of coordinating open innovation processes where distinctive stakeholders (including citizens) are engaged in co-creation, exploration, experimentation, and evaluation in open real-life contexts. Still, for ULL, there is an expanding trend to engage citizens and other stakeholders in distinctive city development projects to develop urban areas that are more flexible to a variety of citizens' needs (Chronéer, Ståhlbröst, & Habibipour, 2019). Additionally, Baccarne, Schuurman, Mechant, & De Marez (2014) also argue that urban living labs are usually overseen by the municipalities and are majorly focused on social value formation and community engagement and non-profitable actions.


In addition to this, ULLs distinct themselves by focusing on knowledge production and learning as major strategies through which such interferences can be effectively accomplished. Their aim drives through co-creation and enablement of numerous participants in co-designing the investigational method in a triple or quadruple spiral approach of conveying science, policy, business, and public culture collected (Bulkeley et al., 2017). In this sense, the European Network of Living Labs – EnoLL reassures that "Living labs are defined as user-centered, open innovation ecosystems based on systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real-life communities and settings." Accordingly, (Steen & Bueren, 2017) have characterized urban living labs in four majors’ dimensions: i) aim ii) activities, iii) participants, and iv) context. These authors also say that there are some differences between Living labs and ULLs, even though they are very similar. They accept that the overall characteristics of living labs and recommendations for their conception and procedures are usually pertinent to ULLs. The difference between living labs and ULLs is the clear emphasis on bringing resolutions meant to stimulate urban sustainability. Adding to understanding, (Steen & Bueren, 2017) explain that ULL purposes are "innovation and formal learning. Its main activities focus on innovation development, co-creation, and reiteration of the proposal and development process by bearing in mind reactions from the preceding stage. Regarding contributors, public and private segments, citizens, and knowledge, organizations are of great importance as its setting, which is always an everyday real-life context, concerning the features of an urban living lab (Voytenko et al., 2016). Further, (S Juujärvi, 2013) have recognized three main stages of engagement in the progression of ULLs. In the first type, the urban context can perform as a technology-assisted research setting by gathering as much citizen response as possible employing different devices and Internet of Things (IoT) placements. In the second type, residents can also be co-creators who subsidize to designing and developing local facilities and urban artifacts (e.g., public yards, day-care facilities). The third kind of urban living lab characterizes a new type of urban arrangement that practices new processes and apparatuses that are settled by enthusiastically engaging citizens.


Depicting from the previous assumptions, Veeckman & van der Graaf (2015) acknowledged three main benefits of observing the city as an urban living lab: 1) it enables citizen involvement and collaboration; 2) it eases co-creation procedures in the city, and 3) it empowers residents.

In this line, Steen & Bueren (2017)

acknowledged five main revolution-related actions in urban living labs. For instance, 1) research, 2) development, 3) testing, 4) implementation, and 5) commercialization. Besides, an ULL can also be categorized from a planning standpoint. First, city labs are hybrid structural forms firmly positioned at the edge of local management and society. Second, city labs are spaces of real-life environments and are knowledge productions for new methods of governance. Third, city labs are multi-stakeholder settings, including the local management and emphasis on co-creation. Fourth, city labs use co-creation in leading experiments. And fifth, city labs solving problems in a multi-disciplinary form by illustrating on knowledge from diverse disciplines (ChronĂŠer et al., 2019). Thus, ChronĂŠer et al. (2019) appointed five key components of generic living labs such as ICT and infrastructure, management structure, partners and users, research, and approach. In the same line, they argue that these key components are basic foundations to analyze further other factors that consolidate its main components of ULLs. Based on this context, what role do sustainability transitions play when it comes to ULLs? Sustainability transitions are directly associated with socio-technical transitions. To Geels (2005) transitions are at the level of societal functions. Thus, they consist of a change from one socio-technical system to another. Transitions are complex processes that cannot be overseen or steered from one viewpoint. They are emergent outcomes of interactions between social groups with myopic views and differing interests, strategies, and resources. Socio-technical systems are actively created, (re)produced and refined by several stakeholders. This way, Geels (2018) says that the socio-technical transition approach has shown that system changes involve technological changes and transformations in consumer









Researches in socio-technical transition focus on single niche-


innovations, which has given some critics the impression that niche-innovations drive transitions. In addition, the term Sustainability Transitions (ST) is used to refer to largescale societal changes. Its aim is solving "grand societal challenges" (Loorbach et al., 2017). As such, ST may be considered a threat to existing stable situations facing keep on sustainability challenges. At the same token, ST present opportunities for more radical systemic, and accelerate change. Markard (2017) and Coenen et al. (2012) say that ST can be viewed as a response to the grand sustainability challenges, based on implicit normative assumption that sectors such as energy, transport, agro-food, etc. because these sectors are unsustainable and have to change to achieve SDGs. To Loorbach et al. (2017), this field of sustainability transitions research comprises a large variety of approaches and perspectives that, in different ways, have furthered insight into the persistency of unsustainable societal regimes and possible transition pathways and transition management strategies to escape lockin. These authors also advance that the field is increasingly global and covers a broad range of sectors, domains, and societal issues, ranging from energy, water, resources, food, and mobility to health care and education, and transitioning regions, cities, and communities toward sustainability. Hence, Markard (2017) affirms that, as an emerging field of research, sustainability transitions have been defined as "long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation processes through which established socio-technical system shift to more sustainable modes of production and consumption. In other words, socio-technical transitions are associated with sustainability targets and guided by public policies (Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012). Loorbach et al. (2017) summarize that the focus of transitions research was on analyzing transitions in socio-technical systems (e.g., mobility, energy, agriculture). Recently, the transitions research field has increased focus on geographically delineated systems in transition, such as urban context (cities); socioecological system understandings; socio-economic trends and new economy phenomena; issues of power, politics, actors, and discourse; and the role of civil society, grassroots initiatives, and social innovation. They represent a paradigm


rupture in the object and dimensions of sustainability transitions: from an emphasis on socio-technical systems to acknowledging socio-ecological, socio-economic, and socio-political systems as equally relevant objects of transition. As such, the field of sustainability transitions has produced several innovative concepts, approaches, and instruments that support interdisciplinary and applied research while promoting innovative practices and policy. It has shaped understanding in policy and society (societal change and public discourse, iterates with society), when it comes to complex persistent problems. In this manner, the field achieves multiplicity of sectors while continuing coherence and direction (Loorbach et al., 2017). In summary, ST in urban contexts are, indeed, characterized by both the emergent varieties and spatial proximity of systems, strategies, practices, institutions, and technologies, and therefore, are certain places or settings creative potential for knowing and capturing and understanding the contextualized politics (Fratini, Georg, & Jørgensen, 2019). These authors state that the studies of sustainability transitions in urban contexts, therefore, inevitably contribute to the identification of deficiencies in the existing literature on transition studies such as this doctoral research that aims to contribute to fulfill this gap by enriching the research field and literature. Finally, from what perspective is this Thesis investigating ULLs as potential sustainability transitions to innovate city systems? As announced in the introduction, from the Circular Economy – CE perspective. According to the literature, CE is an emerging concept that is seen as an alternative to the current linear economy (de Ferreira & Fuso-Nerini, 2019). In fact, the most contemporary conception of the Circular Economy has been defined for Ellen MacArthur Foundation as "an industrial economy that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design" (Geissdoerfer, Savaget, Bocken, & Hultink, 2017; Dąbrowski, Varjú, & Amenta, 2019). As such, Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) say that the CE is a regenerative system in which resource input and waste emission and energy leakage are mitigated by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops. These can be achieved through







refurbishing, and recycling.


Conversely, nowadays, CE has a holistic impact in the system, that functions in loops, at different stages, which imitated the loops seen in nature. At its core, there is the design for second usage where the goal to eliminate waste (de Ferreira & FusoNerini, 2019). CE is developed and implemented systematically and on a large scale, which affects societies beyond cities (Remoy, Wandl, Ceric, & van Timmeren, 2019). Alongside, a CE comes to an urban context. To Ferreira & Fuso-Nerini (2019), as the urban city systems increases every day, cities are ideal locations to implement circular changes, originating from the circular city concept. However, Carriere, Rodriguez, Pey, Pomponi, & Ramakrishna (2020) say that the concept of circular city is vague due its recent investigations in the field. Prendeville, Cherim, & Bocken (2018, p.17) studied six cities in a transition from the current dominant linear economy to a CE. They concluded that Circular cities is still a confusing concept. Thus, they appointed a circular city as "one that practices CE principles to close resource loops in collaboration with its stakeholders to accomplish a future-proof city." In this line, to apply a conception of the circular city tools developed or adequate for circular business analysis such as the ReSOLVE – Regenerate, Share, Optimize, Loop, Virtualize, and Exchange (Prendeville et al., 2018), and the CCAF – Circular City Analysis Framework Ferreira & Fuso-Nerini (2019), which was first introduced by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, It was identified these six pillars that organizations should implement for a transition to a CE approach, it was not designed particularly for CE implementation in cities. However, it is believed that some of its principles contribute to a circular city if applied systematically (Carriere et al., 2020). It aims to keep the key concepts of a CE adapted to a city perspective and to capture the circularity of any analyzed city. It is in line with different CE interpretations as well as the circular city. Besides the aim of analyzing circularity in cities, it focuses on the framework being intuitive and straightforward. Thus, circular cities increase understanding between the city's many agents, from municipalities to academics and enterprises (Carriere et al., 2020). As such, It is believed that ULLs can work as potential sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular economy.


To complete this item, Figure 1presents the authors who will compose the state of art concerning this thesis which text is under construction. Figure 1 – State of the art Authors ULLs Sustainability Transitions (Voytenko et al., 2016) (Puerari et al., 2018) (Sharp & Salter, 2017) (Sharp & Salter, 2017) (Beecroft, 2018) (Diana Chronéer et al., 2018) (Menny, Voytenko Palgan, & McCormick, 2018) (Schaepke et al., 2018) (von Wirth et al., 2019) (Mukhtar-Landgren et al., 2019) (Levenda, 2019) (D Chronéer et al., 2019)

(Schaepke et al., 2018) (Mukhtar-Landgren, Kronsell, Palgan, & von Wirth, 2019) (Frantzeskaki et al., 2018) (Koop & van Leeuwen, 2017) (Wright, Sharpe, & Giurco, 2018) (Fratini, Georg, & Jørgensen, 2019)

Circular Economy (Amenta et al., 2019) (Libera Amenta & van Timmeren, 2018) (Arciniegas et al., 2019) (Dąbrowski, Varjú, & Amenta, 2019) (Remøy, Wandl, Ceric, & van Timmeren, 2019) (Greer, von Wirth, & Loorbach, 2020) (Koop & van Leeuwen, 2017) (Fratini, Georg, & Jørgensen, 2019) (Prendeville, Cherim, & Bocken, 2018c) (de Ferreira & Fuso-Nerini, 2019)

(Dabrowski, Varju, & Amenta, 2019) (Arciniegas et al., 2019) (Dąbrowski et al., 2019) (Remøy, Wandl, Ceric, & van Timmeren, 2019) (Greer, von Wirth, & Loorbach, 2020) Source: Research Data

To summarize, circular cities are first-and-foremost places for people and their sustainable futures. In any conceptualization of a circular city, these issues require consideration. Si no somos nosotros, quienes? Si no es hoy, Cuando? (if not us, how? If not today, when? It is a challenge due to the wicked problems of citizens and cities. Hence, an Interrelationship between ULL, ST, and CE can be established. It is believed that cities exemplified particular productive geography by studying how socio-technical imaginary. For example, the idea that circular economy is coproduced and, thus, how it can be managed to lead sustainability transitions ULLs.


2. Research Approach and Methods The nature of this study is a qualitative approach. Netnography will be applied as the methodology. This methodology is a specific set of related data collection, analysis, ethical and representational research practices," where a significant amount of the data is collected through a very humanist participant-observational research stance (Kozinets, 2013, p.79). Practice Theory is the underlying theoretical approach for data collection and analysis because theory of practice offers various ways of conceptually capturing these dynamics so that they can be traced empirically. In this line, (Shove & Walker, 2010), among others, discuss bundles and complexes of practices. Compounds of practices are stickier forms of co-dependence in which synchronization, sequence, proximity, or necessity co-exist and play crucial roles in the performance of practice (Jensen, 2017, p.1099). The thesis methodologic approach involves five stages as follows. First of all, it will be characterized the state of art of Urban Living Labs, Sustainability Transitions, and Circular Economy, showing their relevance, practices, and research gaps. Secondly, characteristics of ULLs of the global context will be described categorizing them by planetary regions, history, and segments/areas of operation. Third, the founding principles and organization logic evidenced in the texts and artifacts found in the digital environments related to the ULLs selected for this research will be characterized. Fourth, situations/artifacts found in the ULLs digital ecosystems that are configured as sustainability transitions from the perspective of innovation in city systems will be hihglighted. Based on the data collected through the ULLs websites, a Qualitative Comparative Analysis – QCA will be applied. Finally, the findings from the digital ecosystems of the researched ULLs websites will be compared to the logic of the circular economy through a correspondence analysis. Based on the presented findings, I will compare then to the framework of circular economy based on the sustainability transitions found in the ULLs websites. Data is being collected int the site of the European Network of living labs - EnoLL and in the websites of living labs associated with EnoLL. Data collection is being


implemented through note tanking and direct observations in the sites of each of ULL selected for this study. Additionally, interviews with stakeholders will be conducted with those that agree to participate. Though, the whole research corpus will involve 17 ULL situated in nine countries and 15 cities in Europe. Leading by universities of the region, and the focus is Energy, Mobility, Smart cities and region, Health and Wellbeing, Social Inclusion, government, and social innovation. The website was accessed during June and July of 2020. Gathering information available has been documented in a diary board protocol. The protocol was constructed based on the literature review about ULL, Sustainability transitions, and CE. Content analysis is being applied to code data collection by qualitative data analysis computer software Nvivo®. (Bardin, 2011; Silva, Fossá, 2015). Initially, a panoramic reading of the 'diary board’ note taking was done to start the coding process. Then, the 'the coding process’ started looking for trends and particularities based on the diary protocol. After that, I identified the register´ units and the register´s context units to build the matrix analysis. Finally, based on the final results, the findings is going to be presented and discussed in each article that will compose this thesis. At the end, this thesis will compose three main articles each one of them representing each subsidiary goal presented in the introduction. The results will be presented in international conferences and international journal publications. In the next session of this consortium paper, the primarily findings will be presented.

3. Preliminary findings These preliminary findings address the main goal, that is, to assess the factors that have characterized ULL as potential sustainability transitions in the innovation of city systems, considering them from the perspective of the circular economy. Based on the first question: How do ULL work through sustainability transitions to build sustainable cities systems based on the circular economy? In this preliminary study, involving the result of three ULLs only characterized as a Netnography based on a qualitative approach. (Kozinets, 2013; Stake, 2011). "In


a Netnography study, there are no restrictions about what type of online information can be used as data (Kozinets, 2013). The research settings include three urban living labs. ULL1 is located in Switzerland, and the running time was 2013, the purpose of continuously testing and applying new technologies, of public nature, and leading by municipality authorities. The focus area of developing is Energy, Mobility, Smart cities and region, Health and Wellbeing, Social Inclusion, Government, and social innovation. The ULL2 is located in Sweden, and the running time was 2000, the main theme is contributing to the creation of a better society through digital innovations, leading by the university. The focus is Energy, Smart cities and region, education, and cultural and creative. The ULL3 is located in the Netherlands; the running time wasn't information about it; the main theme is taking an active leadership role in the region. Leading by municipality authorities, and the focus is Energy, Mobility, Smart cities and region, Health and Wellbeing, Social Inclusion, Government, and social innovation. The reason to select these ULLs for this research is that the European network of living labs (Enoll) are the most influential initiative covering living labs of the world (Veeckman, Schuurman, Leminen, & Westerlund, 2013). Even Latin-Americans have urban living labs, their experiences are not robust enough to achieve this research purpose. Furthermore, (Veeckman et al. (2013, p.7) say that the living labs are "physical regions or virtual realities where stakeholders combine public-private-peoplepartnerships (4Ps) of organizations, public institutions, high education institutes, and users, that contributes for creation, prototyping, validating and testing new products, services, and systems in real-life settings." In these contexts, the ULLs can have a demographics or geographical focus. They can be classified as research or industry-driven, and they are led by utilizer, enablers, providers, or users (Veeckman et al., 2013). These ULL are located in three (03) countries in Europe, as shown the figure 4. Figure 4 – Region of the selected ULLs ULL 6 Eindhoven Living Labs 13 Botnia Living lab 16 Lugano Living Lab Source: Research Data

Country Netherlands Sweden Switzerland

Location Eindhoven LuleĂĽ Lugano


As findings, from the three studied ULLs so far, five major categories represent how do ULL work through sustainability transitions to build sustainable cities systems based on the circular economy, according to table 1. Table 1 – Preliminary results Categories Botnia Living lab Eindhoven Living Labs Lugano living lab Amount Product development





Innovation System





Knowledge production





Sustainable development





Culture change









Source: Data Research

Product development appears to be significant trend evidence for the three urban living labs. As product development, this study considered practices that the ULL develops as its activities or projects that help find solutions to the city's biggest challenges. According to table 1, product development seems to be the category with most practice performances. The innovation system comes as the second trend. As form innovation system is a transition that collaborates to change social, ecological, and economic incumbent dominant regimes. As a result, in this preliminary finding, it appears as the second significant finding of express routine practice. Knowledge production is the third trend. It is understood as a practice that contributes to the formation of knowledge and learning, fundamental to affect changes in the incumbent's regimes. Sustainable development came out of the forth trend. Here is associated with practices that contribute to mitigating the grand societal challenges such as energy efficiency, climate change, zero waste, mobility, etc. Culture change is the final finding which is to associate the new consumptions habits if compared to the actual incumbent's regime and policies. The matrix resulted from coding process through content analysis of the diary board is plenty of evidence to contextualize this primarily findings. Though, they will be presented in this final article that will compose thesis.


4. Final considerations Urban Living Labs are configured as potential sustainability transitions for citysystems' innovation from the circular economy's perspective. Considering the findings presented above, product development, innovation system, knowledge production, sustainable development, and culture change may be regarded as evidence that connects to the theoretical framework employed in this study. It is believed that this Thesis can contribute to developing a body of knowledge and learning, which are fundamental principles to promotes culture changes and city transformations. Finally, it also provides to sustaining the theoretical approach to urban living labs, sustainability transitions, circular economy – city, and practice theory.


References Arciniegas, G., Šileryté, R., Dąbrowski, M., Wandl, A., Dukai, B., Bohnet, M., & Gutsche, J.M. (2019). A Geodesign Decision Support Environment for Integrating Management of Resource Flows in Spatial Planning. Urban Planning, 4(3), 32. Baccarne, B., Schuurman, D., Mechant, P., & De Marez, L. (2014). The role of Urban Living Labs in a Smart City. ISPIM Conference Proceedings. Beecroft, R. (2018). Embedding higher education into a Real-World Lab: A process-oriented analysis of Six Transdisciplinary Project Courses. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(10). Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., … Voytenko Palgan, Y. (2017). Urban living labs: governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 13–17. Carriere, S., Rodriguez, R. W., Pey, P., Pomponi, F., & Ramakrishna, S. (2020). Circular cities: the case of Singapore. BUILT ENVIRONMENT PROJECT AND ASSET MANAGEMENT. Chronéer, D, Ståhlbröst, A., & Habibipour, A. (2019). Urban Living Labs: Towards an Integrated Understanding of their Key Components. Technology Innovation …. Retrieved from Chronéer, Diana, Ståhlbröst, A., ..., & Habibipour, A. (2018). Towards a unified definition of Urban Living Labs. The ISPIM Innovation …, (June). Retrieved from Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy. Dabrowski, M., Varju, V., & Amenta, L. (2019). Transferring Circular Economy Solutions across Differentiated Territories: Understanding and Overcoming the Barriers for Knowledge Transfer. URBAN PLANNING, 4(3), 52–62. Dąbrowski, M., Varjú, V., & Amenta, L. (2019). Transferring circular economy solutions across differentiated territories: Understanding and overcoming the barriers for knowledge transfer. Urban Planning, 4(3), 52–62. de Ferreira, A. C., & Fuso-Nerini, F. (2019). A framework for implementing and tracking circular economy in cities: The case of Porto. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(6). Frantzeskaki, N., van Steenbergen, F., & Stedman, R. C. (2018). Sense of place and experimentation in urban sustainability transitions: the Resilience Lab in Carnisse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1045–1059. Fratini, C. F., Georg, S., & Jørgensen, M. S. (2019). Exploring circular economy imaginaries in European cities: A research agenda for the governance of urban sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 974–989. Geels, F. W. (2018). Low-carbon transition via system reconfiguration? A socio-technical


whole system analysis of passenger mobility in Great Britain (1990–2016). Energy Research and Social Science. Geels, I. F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: A multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (18601930). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. Greer, R., von Wirth, T., & Loorbach, D. (2020). The diffusion of circular services: Transforming the Dutch catering sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267. Hossain, M., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2019). A systematic review of living lab literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, 976–988. Jensen, C. L. (2017). Understanding energy efficient lighting as an outcome of dynamics of social practices. Journal of Cleaner Production. Koop, S. H. A., & van Leeuwen, C. J. (2017). The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(2), 385–418. Kozinets V, R. (2013). Netnography: Redefined. In Netnography: Redefined. Levenda, A. M. (2019). Thinking critically about smart city experimentation: entrepreneurialism and responsibilization in urban living labs. Local Environment, 24(7), 565–579. Lewandowski, M. (2016). Designing the business models for circular economy-towards the conceptual framework. Sustainability (Switzerland). Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Markard, J. (2017). Sustainability transitions: Exploring the emerging field and its relations to management studies. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 14100. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy. Martin Geissdoerfer, Paulo Savaget, Nancy M.P. Bocken, & Erik Jan Hultink. (2017). The Circular Economy e A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production. McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production. Menny, M., Voytenko Palgan, Y., & McCormick, K. (2018). Urban living labs and the role of users in co-creation. GAIA, 27, 68–77. Mukhtar-Landgren, D., Kronsell, A., Palgan, Y. V., & von Wirth, T. (2019). Municipalities as enablers in urban experimentation. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING, 21(6), 718–733. Prendeville, S., Cherim, E., & Bocken, N. (2018a). Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in


Transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 171–194. Prendeville, S., Cherim, E., & Bocken, N. (2018b). Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 171–194. Prendeville, S., Cherim, E., & Bocken, N. (2018c). Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transition. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 26, 171–194. Puerari, E., de Koning, J. I. J. C., von Wirth, T., Karré, P. M., Mulder, I. J., & Loorbach, D. A. (2018). Co-creation dynamics in Urban Living Labs. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(6). Remoy, H., Wandl, A., Ceric, D., & van Timmeren, A. (2019). Facilitating Circular Economy in Urban Planning. URBAN PLANNING, 4(3), 1–4. Remøy, H., Wandl, A., Ceric, D., & van Timmeren, A. (2019). Facilitating circular economy in urban planning. Urban Planning, Vol. 4, pp. 1–4. Røpke, I. (2009). Theories of practice - New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics. S Juujärvi, K. P. (2013). Actor roles in an urban living lab: what can we learn from Suurpelto, Finland? Schaepke, N., Stelzer, F., Caniglia, G., Bergmann, M., Wanner, M., Singer-Brodowski, M., … Lang, D. J. (2018). Jointly Experimenting for Transformation? Shaping Real-World Laboratories by Comparing Them. GAIA-ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, 27(1), 85–96. Sharp, D., & Salter, R. (2017). Direct impacts of an urban living lab from the participants’ perspective: Livewell Yarra. Sustainability (Switzerland), 9(10). Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2010). Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy. Stake, R. (2011). Pesquisa Qualitativa: estudando como as coisas funcionam. In Métodos de Pesquisa. Steen, K., & Bueren, E. van. (2017). The defining characteristics of urban living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review. Retrieved from Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review. Veeckman, C., & van der Graaf, S. (2015). The City as Living Laboratory: Empowering Citizens with the Citadel Toolkit. Technology Innovation Management Review. von Wirth, T., Fuenfschilling, L., Frantzeskaki, N., & Coenen, L. (2019). Impacts of urban living labs on sustainability transitions: mechanisms and strategies for systemic change through experimentation. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 229–257. Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., & Schliwa, G. (2016). Urban living labs for


sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 123, 45–54.


The development journey of open service innovation in the public and a private sector Authors Ruusa Ligthart and Tim Minshall Institute for Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge

Abstract This research explores how the private and public sector are developing and implementing open service innovation. Although the existing literature introduces some references to open service innovation, a conceptualisation that can draw together the areas of literature connected to this concept is lacking. Some servicerelated aspects of open innovation have received some research attention, but this remains quite low despite the relevance of the topic in today’s service-led society. For practitioners, the problem is that there is no robust framework that supports the implementation of open service innovation in different contexts. To address these research needs, in parallel with the literature review, three in-depth case studies involving the implementation of open service innovation were conducted in Finland over a period of two years. The results obtained from analysing these cases indicate that open service innovation is complex and that there are some unique aspects that distinguish it from the more general concept of open innovation. This research identified the themes common to open service innovation development in both private and public sector organisations. The preliminary case study results revealed common characteristic patterns in their implementation of open service innovation. Even though our case studies are quite different in terms of structure, size and type, they all face quite similar challenges and employ many common enablers when developing open service innovation.

Key words: Open Innovation, Service Innovation, Open Service Innovation, Stakeholder Integration, Customer-Centricity.


Research question and statement of the research gap Service innovation and open innovation have both elicited substantial research interest over several years, but the implementation of open innovation in the service sector has been much less researched (e.g., Randhawa, Wilden and Gudergan, 2018).

Three knowledge gaps have been identified in the field of open service innovation. First, the current literature introduces some references to open service innovation, but a conceptualisation that can identify which areas of the literature are connected to the concept is lacking. Second, compared with the private sector, the public sector is less well-researched in the field of open service innovation (Mergel, 2018). Third, in practice, a framework is lacking in the literature for the open service innovation process that provides understanding to management about how to implement it (Randhawa, Wilden and Gudergan, 2018). Therefore, the research question in this study is: “How the private and public sector are developing and implementing open service innovation?”

Summary of the literature review Research on the service industry has revealed information on service innovation and its focus on customer-centricity. However, involving both customers and other external stakeholders, such as other fields of business, start-ups, suppliers, firms from other industries, research organisations or even competitors, can provide richer sources of potential innovation (e.g., Chesbrough, 2017; Patrício, Gustafsson and Fisk, 2018). In service organisations such as the foregoing, an open innovation approach has been defined as ‘open service innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2010).

The problem arises when we cannot rely only on knowledge received from customers or when customers are not aware of their future service needs. Therefore, involving a broader range of external stakeholders can provide richer sources of potential innovation. However, the process of incorporating such a diverse range of external stakeholders within an organisation’s innovation process can be challenging


(Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004) as it is also a necessity to simultaneously focus on customers (Ostrom et al., 2015; Randhawa, Wilden and Gudergan, 2018).

Research Method The research question “how the private and public sector are developing and implementing open service innovation?� requires data to be collected over an extended timeframe. This allows the examination of how organisations are developing and what changes can be observed over time in open service innovation. Therefore, an in-depth case study approach with longitudinal data gathering undertaken for two years from January 2018 to January 2020 was chosen for the research method. A qualitative multiple case study approach was chosen because it is appropriate to use when the same phenomenon exists in a variety of situations (Yin, 2003). A triangulated method is adopted in order to counter any potential bias from a single data source (Yin, 2003). Source of data

Type of data


Semi-structured individual, pair and group interviews


Observations at meetings, workshops,


training sessions and other social situations


Reports, blogs, power point presentations, job adverts, social media postings, web pages, minutes of meetings and strategy papers

Table 1. Multiple data sources (Adapted from Yin, 2003)

The case selection was performed using the following criteria: a) organisations with customer-centricity that are developing their open service innovation; b) organisations that are based in a country where the service sector is dominant in terms of GDP and the importance of innovation is recognised; Finland is a country


that is ranked as an “innovation leader� (European Innovation Scoreboard, 2019) and where the services sector covers 70 per cent of the GDP (Statistics Finland, 2019); and c) organisations that can provide excellent access to data collection. Case

Number of

Hours spent

No. of



in onsite



data collection (hr)













Table 2. Overview from the case studies

Case Study Findings In the following sections, the case study findings are summarised by explaining the common themes that are related to open service innovation.

Customer-centricity The organisations involved in the case study understand the importance of customercentricity and value creation. In practice, this can be seen by having personnel who are responsible for developing a customer-centric approach, such as the head of customer experience and the service designers. Furthermore, the top management understands the importance of customer-centricity.

Customer-centricity is an area where the case study organisations explained that they could still improve. In an ideal case, from the outset of service development, the organisations should involve customers throughout the innovation process. In real life, this does not always happen. As stated by one interviewee, "We have lots of good new ideas but we are still using too much time and energy discussing whose idea or opinion


is best. It would be easier if we could test the idea with our customers from the beginning." The aim of the organisations is to have a more systematic process of engaging with their customers in order to make it part of their daily work.

Stakeholder collaboration The case study organisations are seeking a systematic process in open service innovation regarding how to openly develop new services with different stakeholders in order to make it a regular and constant part of their development work. In this regard, it is necessary to re-design internal processes. The challenge here is that the focus is on everyday work and not on innovation. The case study participants stated that structured management and transparency would be helpful: "A systematic or organised management is needed. This would help us achieve transparency. This way, we would know what is happening and where. This would help us avoid doing the same things twice in different locations."

Open organisational culture Openness in organisational culture was highlighted in all of the interviews as an enabler of open service innovation. One of the changes that the organisations have undertaken to enhance openness in their culture is to renovate the employees' workspaces in order to create open co-working spaces. The case study organisations feel that there is no need to have offices where people have personal desks. This is seen as an important enabler of the openness of organisational culture: "Our physical working spaces are currently under construction, as this will facilitate a more open working culture." Customers and stakeholders can become closer to organisations by situating cafeterias or restaurants in the same building and making them open to everyone. Furthermore, to enhance openness, several projects are needed to support an open organisational culture, both internally and externally.

Co-creation Co-creation is being practiced in all of the case study organisations, and it is seen as a valuable attribute, especially by customers and internally. The organisations explained that co-creation should always be part of the workflow when developing


innovations for customers. However, in reality, co-creation is not always involved in the innovation process: "In reality, if we think of co-creation, I can say that of course we test our service innovations with customers, but not at the beginning of service development or throughout the service development, as it should be." Nevertheless, this is recognised in customer-centric organisations as a valuable method in terms of working closely with customers. "We always listen to our customers but whether we always co-create with them… Well, we have some good examples, but co-creation is perhaps too strong a term to use." Co-creation is used more rarely with stakeholders than with customers, as when working with stakeholders, cooperation is often less time-consuming than co-creation and co-creation is not always needed.

Start-up cooperation At the beginning of the data gathering, the organisations mentioned the importance of start-up cooperation. Two case study organisations, in particular, actively attracted start-ups to work towards improving the organisations’ customer-centricity. Furthermore, one manager explained the need for a systematic process to find suitable start-ups: "We are scanning start-ups here and there but it’s not systematic or transparent as it should be, and I would say that currently, only a few people are doing it in isolation."

Research organisation cooperation The importance of working with research organisations was mentioned by only one organisation at the beginning of the data gathering. However, during the process of developing open service innovation activities, the organisations started to highlight the importance of cooperation with research organisations. On the other hand, research organisations’ cooperation was seen as quite slow compared to start-up cooperation. In fact, as one director explained: "When we were planning our open innovation function, we very briefly discussed the usefulness of cooperation with research organisations but we concluded the conversation quite fast by noting that working with research organisations is usually very slow." The internal instruction was to help


smoothen collaborations with research organisations and focus on collaborating with chosen research organisations by establishing co-operation contracts.

Conclusion This paper identified the lack of knowledge in open service innovation that thoroughly explains its implementation in both the public and private sectors. Therefore, we presented some preliminary research results from cases of open service innovation development. The results identified characteristics that are common to open service innovation development in both private and public sector organisations. Even though the case organisations are different in terms of structure, size and type, they all encounter quite similar challenges and employ many common enablers when developing open service innovation.

The next step of this study is to investigate a broader scope of literature on open service innovation in both public and private sectors to be able to draw a conceptual framework. Then, this framework will be compared to the case study results, after which we will introduce an open service innovation framework enhanced by the research results

References Chesbrough, H. (2017) ‘The Future of Open Innovation. R&D Management’, Research-Technology Management. Taylor & Francis, 60(6), pp. 29–35.

Chesbrough, H. (2010) Open Services Innovation: Rethink your business to grow and compete in a new area. Wiley.

European Innovation Scoreboard (2019) Accessed June 2020.


Mergel, I. (2018) Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of, Public Management Review.Routledge,20(5), pp.726– 745. Ostrom, A. L. et al. (2015) ‘Service Research Priorities in a Rapidly Changing Context’, Journal of Service Research, 8(18), pp. 127–159. Patrício, L., Gustafsson, A. and Fisk, R. (2018) ‘Upframing Service Design and Innovation for Research Impact’, Journal of Service Research, 21(1), pp. 3–16. Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) ‘Co-Creation Experience the Next Practice in Value Creation’, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), pp. 5–14. Randhawa, K., Wilden, R. and Gudergan, S. (2018) ‘Open Service Innovation: The Role of Intermediary Capabilities’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(5), pp. 808–838.

Statistics Finland (2020) Accessed June 2019. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.


The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is the international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide. Founded in November 2006 under the auspices of the Finnish European Presidency, the network has grown in ‘waves’ up to this day. ENoLL counts today over 150 active Living Lab members worldwide. Directly, as well as through its active members, ENoLL provides co-creation user engagement, test and experimentation facilities targeting innovation in many different domains such as IoT& AI, media, energy, mobility, agriculture & agri-food, social innovation, smart cities & regions, culture & creativity, health & well being, environment, etc. Via their Action Oriented Task Forces ENoLL empowers knowledge sharing and cooperation in- and outside their network. The Capacity Building Program of ENoLL creates strong connections inbetween the experts of the network and all organizations wanting to learn the principles of setting up & running a living lab. European Network of Living Labs Pleinlaan 9 1050 Brussels Belgium

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.