1 14th ICTPI Conference BRNO Czech Republic, 9-12 September 2014
Living Labs: Concepts and Critical Factors
Marina van Geenhuizen,
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management,
Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: m.s.vangeenhuizen@tudelft.nl
Abstract: Living Labs are a relatively new and increasingly popular tool to enhance innovation. Many universities, companies and cities today are involved in Living Labs to bridge barriers in their collaboration and benefit from the input of user groups’ needs and shortening time to market. Despite their popularity, Living Labs just started being subject of systematic research, for example, on characteristics, aims and critical factors. That this took a long time can be ascribed to the different conceptualizations of Living Labs and a fuzzy use of the concepts. This study first presents a conceptualization of Living Labs and attempts to position it in-between ‘adjacent’ concepts. This is followed by a summary of the literature so-far on critical factors in set-up and operation of Living Labs and these are illustrated with two case studies, particularly concerning the barriers they can bridge and the conditions that need to be satisfied for that.
Key words: Living Labs, knowledge commercialization, user groups, Triple Helix, critical factors
Jel code: D83, I1, O31
1. Living Labs in Perspective
Living Labs are an increasingly popular tool to enhance innovation. The concept of Living Labs has started to be elaborated since the early 2000s when William Mitchell at Massachusetts Institute of Technology proposed to move research activity from laboratories to in vivo settings, thereby enabling to monitor users’ interaction with innovations in reality. A major contribution to the rise of the Living Lab concept came from research on users as an important origin of innovation (von Hippel, 1986, 2005; Thomke and von Hippel, 2002) and new ideas on participatory and convergence culture (Jenkins, 2006). Ideas on user-led innovation and the customer-active paradigm have fostered models of co-creation as ways of jointly creation of value by companies, researchers and customers (Pralahad and Ramaswamy, 2004). In this development, the Living Lab concept was also significantly ‘fuelled’ by models of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006; Enkel et al., 2009) in which large and small firms and research institutes collaborate in R&D and share the results under certain conditions, with benefits including cost savings, increased user-value and a better (quicker) innovation process and performance (Barge-Gil, 2010; Chiaroni et al., 2010; Drechsler and Natter, 2012). All this caused replacing the ‘single-inventor perspective’ by a
2 knowledge flow (inflow and outflow) between partners in the process with an emphasis on involving user-groups more actively and early in the process of new product, process and service development. Most experience with developing and managing Living Labs in Europe has been gained in the past five years by the ENoll network fostering Living Labs with the mission of introducing ICT-based innovations in European societies (ENoll, 2014).
In addition, the model of innovation in society started changing to include a more prominent position of the public sector and civic society, connected with various large societal challenges that are still waiting for solutions, like in transport, energy use, health among elderly, in the European Union forwarded in the policy document Horizon 2020. Accordingly, the aim of innovation and of parts of university research is shifting towards finding solutions that are desired by societal actors (Goddard and Vallance, 2013). More recently, this trend has been named ‘responsible innovation’ (van den Hoven et al., 2013; Owen et al., 2012), in which the process of innovation does not only require consultation of civic groups or other users but also input from them in the design of solutions to make them more effective, indicating a more substantial role for user-groups in the innovation process than in previous times.
In line with previous ideas, the broad goal of Living Labs can be described as follows, i.e. to speed up innovation and make it more effective in terms of higher user-value, which is achieved by an early involvement of users as co-creators (Fahy et al., 2007; Følstad, 2008). Increasingly today and connected to the perspective of responsible innovation, the emphasis is also laid on providing better solutions for societal problems often in the frame of sustainability, like energy saving, climate change, health care and cure, and safety, also named ‘community-driven innovation’ e.g., van der Walt et al. (2009). In practice, the aims of Living Labs are widely different dependent on the specific field of application.
Broadly speaking, one may distinguish between two conceptualizations of Living Labs in the literature, drawing among others on experiences in development of ICT (Følstad, 2008; Guldemond and van Geenhuizen, 2013; van Geenhuizen, 2014): 1) the open innovation network or platform with strong user involvement, emphasizing on the role of Living Labs as intermediaries that coordinate network partners in open innovation collaboration (Katzy, 2013), and 2) the limited real-world environment, related to physical infrastructures and a network of involved actors, specifically with strong involvement of user-groups, emphasizing on the role to increase user-value. The two concepts do not exclude each other, meaning that the second conceptualization could be part of the first one.
Different from early writings by the current author, in this paper, the starting point for analysis will be the delimited physical real-life environment in which user groups are active in design of solutions together with researchers and other actors in relatively open networks. Virtual realities are an important variation on this concept, but will remain outside the analysis.
3 Congruent with its popularity as an innovation tool in practice, Living Labs are now increasingly being researched extensively and systematically (e.g., Almirall et al., 2012; Leminen et al., 2012, 2014; Leminen, 2013; Ståhlbrost, 2012; Dubé et al., 2013). However, what is striking is that there is hardly any research on critical factors in establishment and management of Living Labs. Accordingly, it is not clear under which conditions Living Labs can speed up in designing the best solutions to societal problems or to user-value and shortening time-to-market. Much of this knowledge gap can be ascribed to the lack of a uniform definition and stretching of the concept into different directions and related (adjacent) concepts (Leminen, 2013; Nystrøm et al., 2014). Against this background, the research questions of this paper are as follows:
1) What are Living Labs as a concept and how do they relate to ‘adjacent’ concepts? 2) What are critical factors in set up and operation of Living Labs? 3) How do these factors manifest themselves in medical and shopping mall Living Labs as specific examples?
The study draws on an extensive scan of the literature and workshop experience enabling the identification of a set of critical factors. These factors are analysed in-depth using two Living Labs in the medical sector and retail in the Netherlands and in Canada.
The structure of the paper is as follows: In section 2, Living Labs are conceptualized and demarcated using the following dimensions: user involvement, real life environment and composition of actors’ network. These dimensions are also leading in identifying critical factors in the literature in section 3. Section 4 encompasses the four case studies and a further elaboration of the critical factors. Section 5 provides the conclusions and future research paths.
2. Conceptualization 2.1 Introduction
As above indicated, in this paper Living Labs are conceptualized in a narrow way as delimited real-life environments, in which user-groups are involved as active co-creators/designers in a network encompassing researchers and other relevant actors. The practice of Living Labs includes five key activities related to co-creation (Pralahad and Rawaswamy, 2004) as follows:
- Joint creation of value by users and producers and/or researchers,
- Joint problem definition and problem solving, using experimentation as implementing solutions and testing them in living settings and living communities
- Creation of an experience environment in which customers have dialogue and co-construct personalized experience
- Evaluation of experiences, new concepts, user value according to e.g. ergonomic, medical, social cognitive and socio-economic criteria, and actual market opportunities, - Exploration of emerging uses, market opportunities, etc.
4
According to the conceptualization selected in this study, Living Labs certainly encompass the first four activities, but may have a different emphasis in exploring emerging uses and opportunities in the near future.
In general, Living Labs may be different in practical aims, be-it bringing a societal goal nearer, like social inclusion of physical disabled people in shopping malls, enhancing the adoption of e-health meaning improving efficiency of monitoring of patients in home situations, or bringing a technology invention quicker to market by quickly improving user-value. Resources may also be different, dependent upon the business model used and whether large subsidies are provided – such as in health and ICT use - or a large firm is involved that invests in the Living Lab.
2.2 User involvement
There are various types of users (Arnkill et al., 2010; Almirall et al., 2012). The following distinction can be made according to the place of users in the market:
Lead users. Lead users are defined as those in the leading edge of an important market, and are typically facing needs that will later be experienced by large groups of ordinary users in the same market (von Hippel, 1986, 2005).
Ordinary users. Ordinary users are part of established markets, where nevertheless solutions may be improved and/or products be customized to user needs and preferences. There is an overall trend towards personalized services and goods, like personalized medicines, personalized fashion and personalized interior design (BDC, 2013).
And according to type of organization, we may distinguish between:
Organizations (firms). Many firms are users of innovations as an intermediary step towards an end-product. Public authorities, like municipalities in e-governance, and semi-public organizations, like public transport bodies, are also important users.
Pressure groups (civic society bodies). Civic society is increasingly powerful in signaling societal problems and challenges while being prepared to co-design solutions, e.g. in housing, traffic, urban greening, health care.
Most of the research results on user groups is drawn from Living Labs in ICT applications in Scandinavian countries and all agree that user involvement is a key aspect but also a multidimensional aspect of Living Labs. With regard to the degree of involvement, a whole range of diversity can be observed, running from users as leading co-creators to users as passive subjects (Arnkil et al., 2010; Almirall et al., 2012). We distinguish between various situations of which the first two tend to match our narrow definition of Living Labs and the others touch upon ‘adjacent’ concepts:
User-driven, in which users are the ones that drive the innovation process, such as in the case of lead-users and open source situations.
Participatory driven, in which users work on equal ground with other participants in a co-creative innovation and testing process.
5
Design-driven, in which designers have the lead in finding new solutions.
User-centered, in which users are passive subjects of study, this in the case of usability testing, like in test or field labs.
Combinations of some of the above models in one project.
The stronger the involvement of users, the more important the selection of the appropriate user types is for participation in the Living Lab. This includes aspects of users’ motivation and users’ capabilities to collaborate in co-creation, including the application of advanced methods and technologies, etc.
In terms of extending the concept of Living Labs along the axis of user involvement, we may identify test beds and field labs as models, which are not involved in co-creation and users are just subject of study coming close to a classical laboratory setting (Almirall et al. 2012). Figure 1 illustrates various types of concepts using the dimension user involvement (from co-creator to subject of study) and physical environment (from real-life environment to lab-like setting).
Figure 1 User-involvement and real-life environment: Living Labs (Source: Almirall, Lee and Wareham, 2012)
2.3 Real-life environment: function and spatial scale
The real life environments in Living Labs may be different in terms of functions and this depends on the types of innovation or solution aimed at. Living Labs as physical real-life environments are specialized in the sense of applications, like health and medical care (Guldemond, 2012; HICD, 2012) ICT supported sustainable housing and safety, in particular working and living on campus at universities, etc. (Foundation Urgenda, 2012; University of
6 British Columbia, 2012), and behavior in shopping malls (by physically disabled persons) (Kehayia et al., 2014)
In terms of spatial scale, Living Labs stretch from delimited physical places, for example, a hospital, a living house, a living quarter, a shopping mall and a university campus, to entire cities. If the scale of the Living Lab is extended to segments of cities and entire cities or regions, we come close to the concept of open local/regional innovation systems, which are interrelated networks supporting innovation in firms and encompass knowledge creation and knowledge commercialization. Such systems, if well-functioning are underpinned by sets of common institutions and - aside from the internal networking - by networking with external partners, preferably international ones (Tödtling and Trippl, 2005). Local/regional innovation systems are, however, not necessarily managed as a unit and thus organized as much loser structures.
Entire cities have come into the picture in the more recent Smart City approach, in which digital technologies translate into better public services for citizens, better use of resources and less impact on the environment. In more detail, the Smart City concept means smarter transport networks, upgraded water supply and waste disposal facilities, and more efficient ways to light and heat buildings. Furthermore, it encompasses a more interactive and responsive city administration, safer public places and meeting the needs of an ageing population (EC, 2012). In this vein, the idea has developed that Smart Cities can be used as real-life testing ground for new ideas and technologies, thanks to a technical infrastructure, including real-time feedback sensors, wireless networks, and software to manage the data.
A specific kind of such Living Lab is the so-called Urban Transition Labs, as an environment created for learning, reflection and development of innovations in which various global persistent problems are translated to the specific characteristics of the city, and multiple transitions towards higher levels of sustainability interact across domains, e.g. energy, mobility, built environment, food, ecosystems, etc. (Nevens et al., 2013). Typically, in the Urban Transition Lab, research and innovation are integrated through systematic co-creation, exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovative ideas, scenarios on transition in real-life use cases, particularly identifying lock-in situation that may block transitions. A concept that also comes close is the niche as a protected environment allowing for learning and experimentation, but where there is no key role for users as co-creators.
2.4 Networks of relevant actors
Actors stretch from directly involved ones to whole webs of actors. Directly involved actors (core network) encompass the problem owners which partly overlap with user-groups, researchers and /or companies that jointly provide part of the solution, financial institutions, and public authorities (which partly overlap with problem owners). The motives and interests of these actors involved in Living Labs are usually different, as the following main lines indicate:
7
Problem-owners/user-groups: these encompass user-groups that are faced with a problematic situation as consumers, like the elderly and patients, but also as public authorities wanting to solve a societal problem and not-for-profit organizations like hospitals that want to increase efficiency and patient comfort.
Universities and research institutes: they intend to bring more knowledge to market (as their ‘third’ mission) (van Geenhuizen, 2013) and Living Labs may be helpful in accelerating this through co-design, testing with more valid results and learning about customer wishes. In addition, today, more universities have an interest in solving societal problems and acting more responsible towards society (Goddard and Valance, 2013).
Companies, large and small ones: they intend to provide better quality and new products/services for which they need user feed-back and co-creation in better matching with user needs and user value, serving shortening of time-to-market and decreasing risk of failure (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; Nystrøm et al., 2014).
Financial institutions: they invest in individual projects or in Living Labs at large which appear to be promising in gaining good results in new products and services, and gaining profit in one way or another.
Municipalities and other public authorities: they are not necessarily involved, but if they are they may have various roles/interests, e.g. acting as a facilitator, performing as a neutral actor, or performing as a leading actor if problem owner, like in education and elderly care.
The above list indicates that interests may be considerably different between the actors in the network and that actors may have various interests simultaneously. The complexity in the networks increases if there are clear power differences between the actors and if roles and power quickly change (Nystrøm et al., 2014).
With regard to indirect actors, we may refer to the first conceptualization of Living Labs, mentioned in the introduction to this paper, as an open innovation network/platform, enlarging its role as nodes and intermediaries in larger open innovation networks and multi-organizational collaboration (Almirall and Wareham, 2011; Katzy et al., 2012). This could include a value chain approach that considers the link between Living Labs and next segments in the value chain, including manufacturers and service providers, among them other knowledge providers. It may also include an entrepreneurship approach, where Living Labs (narrowly defined) are connected with incubators of high-tech ventures that bring the improved innovation to market. There are various examples in practice, like in the ENoLL network, but no research to date has been done on a better identification and understanding of such extensions.
8 Table 1. Preliminary extensions of narrowly defined Living Labs
Dimension of LL
Characteristic of LL
Extension ‘Adjacent’ concept
User-involvement
Active involvement (co-creation)
Higher degrees of passive involvement
Field-laboratory or testing field
Design driven innovation Design-laboratory Real-life
environment
Limited and
physical
Larger scale and focus on measuring urban conditions and user behaviour/flows
Smart cities
Large scale (cities) and more actors/ networks (system level and institutional view)
Local innovation systems
Emphasis on learning under protection
Local niche
Actors involved
Relevant actors for performance and management
Larger networks and more functions, like incubation of ventures
Innovation platform/network
3. Critical factors
In this section, a list of critical factors is designed to assess the potential contribution of Living Labs - as narrowly defined - in matching user needs with innovation and speeding up the processes involved. As previously mentioned, Living Labs have no sufficiently long history of implementation and performance to produce historic case evaluation material in a systematic way to provide the key information. Nevertheless, it is possible by using recent systematic studies of Living Labs and adjacent literature to broadly identify what structures and processes of Living Labs - according to a narrow definition - are crucial in accomplishing their aims (Almirall et al., 2012; Guldemond and van Geenhuizen, 2012; Leminen, 2013; Leminen et al., 2014; van Geenhuizen, 2014; Nystrøm et al., 2014). The literature indicates six important factors in the set-up and operation of Living Labs that enable an adequate performance of them (Table 2). First, we discuss the three dimensions that were addressed previously in this paper: user involvement, real-life environment and actor network.
The involvement of user-groups is most often mentioned as a critical factor, particularly the need for a good selection, and the need for a close and intensive interaction. Such interaction requires a sufficient match between R&D issues and users’ needs, capabilities and experience. It is seen of utmost importance to select the right user groups and to provide them with adequate motivation. The qualification ‘right’ means that the selected users are sufficiently committed to finding a solution and that they are able to contribute actively by a sufficient skills level, like in dealing with information tools and in communicating their personal needs, experiences and future expectations (scenario’s). The idea of adequate motivation touches,
9 however, upon some ambiguity which seems difficult to solve. On the one hand, it is important to include sufficiently motivated users, like lead-users, but on the other, including the not-motivated persons seems also important to be able to reveal the reasons behind a lack of motivation, in particular if these persons belong to the potential market segments of the near future (Waag Society, 2012). In addition, if the user group is ‘vulnerable’ with regard to health or social interaction, like elderly, physically handicapped people and culturally isolated groups, it is of utmost importance that sufficient trust is created between them and the developers in co-creation and testing. Mental distances in this sense can be bridged by having trainers involved from the same (cultural) background and by establishing trustful relationships already before start of the projects (Kop, 2011).
The real-life environment is crucial in the practice of Living Labs, though it can be partially substituted by a virtual environment. Nowhere in the literature, however, is the real-life environment addressed as a factor that deserves some critical attention in the set-up and management of Living Labs. This is remarkable because the physical dimension introduces questions on, for example, access and openness in relation to what is public and what is private of the places involved. Legal aspects of the implementation of infrastructures in those places, can be added, like in private and shared living houses, hospitals, shopping malls, railway stations, etc. Complexity may increase if the spatial scale of the Living Lab is stretched towards whole city quarters and beyond, producing challenges of coordination and management.
The composition of actors in the networks is in second place in importance in the literature. With respect to the core network, it is worth mentioning that a too large number of actors and dominance of one of them, as well as a strong dependency between actors need to be avoided. If many different actors are included, particularly with contrasting opinions and interests, there is a large chance for conflict and delay in decision-making, whereas a strong dominance of one large actor may deter smaller parties to participate (Guldemond and van Geenhuizen, 2012). In addition, if there is strong dependency between two or three core actors, withdrawal by one in times of conflict may cause withdrawal of others, making survival of the Living Lab and its constituent programs at risk, as indicated by insights from management of complex projects (De Bruijn et al., 2010; Flyvbjerg et al., 2005). Needless to say, that the quality of the management of the core network is crucial, being able to avoid imbalances between actors in this network.
Related to the composition of the actors is the role they get assigned or adopt in reaching the aims of the Living Lab. A recent study has revealed that sufficient attention needs to be given to four role patterns (Nystrøm et al., 2014): a) ambidextarity, b) reciprocity, c) temporality and d) multiplicity. Role ambidexterity means that users act simultaneously as ‘role-takers’ in providing advice and new ideas, and as role-makers as active co-creators and making their role.
We may add the following critical factors identified in the literature search (van Geenhuizen, 2014): structure and management of the innovation process, role and use of information and
10 communication technology (ICT), and a set of values and flexibility in institutional formats that need to be respected. How the innovation process is structured, is a crucial factor. Living Labs constitute the environment in which practical innovation projects are being developed, scanned and eventually forwarded for gaining investment. These activities require a clear model and a transparent decision structure in practice including go/no-go decisions, leading to attractive business propositions. The model can be like a ‘funnel’ or networks (Chesbrough, 2003; Vanhaverbeke, 2012). In addition, on a higher management level, Leminen (2014) mentions the difference between coordination approaches of innovation as diverse combinations of ‘top-down’ (provider-driven) versus ‘bottom-up’ (utilizer-driven) and ‘inhalation’ versus ‘exhalation’ dominated participation. What is the best combination apparently depends on the aim and means of the Living Lab, but there is a lack of knowledge of this critical dimension.
Table 2 A preliminary set of critical factors in set-up and management Criterion Details
1.Involvement of user groups
An adequate user-group selection and involvement: - Motivation among users
- Capabilities among users to perform their roles - Creation of trust
2.Delimited real- life setting
-No critical factors mentioned, but issues foreseen like concerning access. -If the scale is enlarged, the rise of various management issues.
3.Composition and management of the core network (actor complexity)
-Involvement of all relevant actors, e.g. user-groups, facilitators (incl. financers), civic society, large/small firms, universities, local authorities, etc. -At the same time: avoiding to include a large number of them, a clear dominant one and strong interdependency between large actors.
-Creation of openness and neutrality, particularly to avoid one large actor to play a ‘key role’ deterring other actors to participate.
-Enhancing a fair and transparent distribution of tasks and cost/benefit distribution over the core network actors.
-Quality management of the networks , particularly enabling the balancing of actors’ interests.
-Attention to actors’ roles: ambidexterity, reciprocity, multiplicity, etc. 4.Structured
innovation process
-Working with a ‘funnel’ or other selection mechanism of promising projects. -Working with transparent go/no-go decisions (provide a better process). 5.Role of ICT -Involved for monitoring and analysis of user responses to inventions, and for
performing part of the co-creation/design role by users.
-At the same time: avoiding to use ICT as the main driver, unless its adoption is subject of analysis, like in ambient assisted living.
6.A set of values and institutional formats
-Attention for ethical/legal issues, like users’ privacy, users’ independence and legal liability in case of failure, intellectual property protection, etc. -Flexibility in organizational format, like moving from public-private to private.
Source: Adapted from van Geenhuizen (2014).
A further point is the use of ICT. There is a need to involve sufficient ICT in monitoring and analysis of user responses to inventions and product improvements, and in the design/create activities of users. At the same time, it seems important to avoid ICT to be the driver of
11 projects, particularly where the mental distance between the technology and user-groups is relatively large, due to culture and/or age. And finally, there are values and institutional formats to be respected: these include ethical and legal issues concerning privacy and liability, and intellectual ownership, as well as the need for flexibility in organizational format. The last refers to transforming the Living Lab into a business firm, through which efficiency may increase.
4. Case studies in the medical sector 4.1 Introduction
Despite the many inventions in medical technology and care, there is still a lot of development activity needed to bring medical inventions to market and to have them customized to different user needs (e.g. Nambisan and Nambisan, 2009; Shah et al., 2009), efforts in which Living Labs can be considerably helpful and have large potentials. This section presents two case studies to illustrate the importance of the previously indicated critical factors. To reveal some differentiation, Case Study 1 represents projects on ambient assisted living technology for elderly. The objective of ambient assisted living is to extent the time of living independently at home by use of smart homes or home automation and e-health tools. Case Study 2 represents projects on increasing social inclusion of handicapped people in their daily activities using a wheelchair, in particular shopping in a mall (Table 3). The main data source is the website of the projects, triangulated with additional literature found through this website of which an evaluation study is most important for both cases.
4.2 Living Labs for ambient assisted living
The Living Lab Amsterdam has the aim to improve living of the elderly in their home situation, with the technology side but also the user-side (psychology) being embedded in university research. The approach to user involvement can be characterized as a mixed method, ranging from interviews on testing the ICT applications to co-creation of the specific application, with the aim to get a (very) rich feedback from the users supporting development activity. The Living Lab started in 2011 at various locations of independently living elderly in the Amsterdam area. ICT in this project served two goals, namely, to measure activities of daily life (ADL) indicating the level of independence in living and need for support, and to make combinations with other products and services, such as an alarming system, a mood button, etc.
Trust among the elderly in participation was increased by using already established personal relationship with researchers and a clear proof of working of the innovation. With regard to the sensor system and monitoring technology, privacy turned out to be a serious issue but also the desire of being able to switch-off the system (self-determination) was important. In addition, the time of installation of the sensors in the homes turned out to be an issue, i.e. prior to the invitation to participate or after that invitation. Overall, economic and business aspects of the applications were somewhat neglected in this Living Lab.
12 Table 3. Local Living Labs: ambient assisted living and wheelchair shopping
Case study 1 Case study 2
Name Living Lab Amsterdam Rehabilitation Living Lab (Montreal downtown shopping mall Alexis Nihon), Montreal Canada
Working years 2011-2013 2011 - …
Application domain ICT (domotics) and health care Reconstruction of building (shopping mall) and wheelchair adaptation
Aim and means Affordable healthcare and illness prevention, by increasing acceptance of ICT tools for housing and home care.
Social inclusion of person with disabilities by developing technology solutions and intervention (in shopping malls)
User group and roles Elderly (different groups)
Combination of roles from active to somewhat passive
Trust created by already established personal relations and showing proof of working of the technology
Disabled persons and rehabilitation service providers
Active role with changes
Trust is no specific issue (aside from large commitment in all relationships)
Physical setting Various independent ‘senior houses’ A ‘renovation-ready’ shopping mall Core network actors
(other than users)
Amsterdam Region Care & ICT; AMSTA (care society); City and Province
University of Applied Science, University of Amsterdam, Free University
Shopping mall organization, merchants and community–based organizations Various universities, including abroad Companies
Attention for actors’ roles
Role ambidexterity among users possible Changing roles possible
Structured innovation process
Open structure, allowing new applications entering the project
Not an issue so-far
Role of ICT Culture gap between ‘soft’ care and ICT,
but well managed
Sensor systems need to be safe (privacy) and inspiring trust
Part of the solutions (e.g. smart wheelchairs and adapted GPS) No gap so-far
Practical values, institutional format
Ease of use
Privacy protection of users
Maintaining of self-determination of users
Deep commitment of actors to success of the project
Additional critical factor(s)
1)Mixed user involvement: interviews, sensor data, co-creation, focus groups, etc. 2)Multidisciplinary approach.
Interdisciplinary and inter-sector nature -Excellence in rehabilitation research -Strong partnerships with stakeholders -Linked with a community of practice -Initiatives to monitor progress, evaluate outcomes and identify research gaps
Sources: Amsterdam Region Care & ICT (2013), Kehaya et al. (2014), van Geenhuizen (2014).
4.3 Shopping mall rehabilitation and wheel-chair shopping
Case Study 2 arose from the converging goals of scientists in rehabilitation and rehabilitation services providers to enable persons with a disability to resume their previous level of function and life roles after discharge from rehabilitation (Kehaya et al., 2014). The Living Lab is part of a comprehensive approach to improve inclusion of the disabled both physically and socially, and is situated in a shopping mall in Montreal. The aim is to find better solutions concerning e.g. wheel-chairs’ navigating and way-finding technology, as well as interventions in reconstruction of the shopping mall. The Living Lab is organized in such a way that the user-groups, disabled persons and rehabilitation services providers, are in a situation to adopt different roles like co-creating, testing, being part of focus groups, etc. The project started in 2011 and is currently in a preliminary stage of evaluation.
13 Industry partners have a relatively strong role in this project, because they have the responsibility to co-create the solutions and bring them to the pilot stage. Regarding the structure of the innovation process, using a particular selection model for viable solutions, turns out not to be an issue. Further, in terms of values, a strong commitment of the core actors is forwarded as important and crucial for success. Progress of the project seems also to be enhanced by a broad setting of activities in the context of participatory action research, community of practice (CoP) and international research and business relations, not observed in the first case study. The critical factors identified so far only cover the strong partnerships (commitment) within the core network as the most salient, aside from the multidisciplinary and a multi-sector approach. The last encompasses, for example, shopping, transport, and psychology.
Results of this Living Lab can be summarized as improvement in wheel-chair and navigation technology and refurbishing needs of shopping malls, and additionally much insight into the multidisciplinary and multi-sector aspects due to an extensive involvement of various university faculties and other learning partners.
4.4 A brief comparison
To conclude, the most important critical factor, namely, in relation to user-involvement, seems the creation of trust among users in interaction with developers/researchers as well as a guaranteed privacy and self-determination. This has been mainly addressed in the case study on ambient assisted living of elderly. In the second case study, such factors are included under the umbrella of strong stakeholder commitment.
A main difference between the case studies is a more prominent role of companies in the second case study aimed at matching the technology with user needs and designing of prototypes (situations). Another difference is the broader context of the second case study, international but also in local community life (CoPs). In addition, various critical factors derived from the literature study in Section 3 did not apply to the two case studies, like related to the real-life setting and structured innovation process.
5. Concluding remarks
This study has dealt with Living Labs in a narrow sense as delimited real-life environments, in which user-groups are involved as active co-creators/designers of new technology applications in a network of researchers and other relevant actors. Despite the recent popularity as an innovation tool, Living Labs have seldom been investigated in a systematic way including critical factors in their performance. This situation is partly due to the loose and fuzzy conceptualization of Living Labs.
As a first step in the paper, this conceptualization has been analyzed using three dimensions to identify extensions of the narrow concept, namely, user involvement, real-life environment and network of actors. In a second step, these dimensions - supplemented with other ones -
14 acted as leading in a literature search for critical factors in the performance of Living Labs. These additional factors have been identified as: structured innovation process, role of ICT and practical values and organizational format. And thirdly, two case studies were presented as an illustration of critical factors.
User-involvement, particularly the creation of trust among users in interaction with developers/researchers and a guaranteed privacy and self-determination, turned out to be most important. This factor was clearly addressed in the first case study, on ambient assisted living for the elderly. In the second case study, on renovation of a shopping mall and wheelchair navigation technology, such factors were included under the umbrella of a strong stakeholder commitment. The trust which is required can be increased by using persons from the same social group as a coach or as a role model, etc., and by convincingly showing users that the innovation works without disadvantages. A main difference between the case studies was the more prominent role of companies in the second one aimed at adjusting the technology and designing of prototypes (situations) and the larger (policy) embedding of the second one, international and local.
The current research suffers from some shortcomings, one is the limited number of cities/countries from which the case studies were drawn, namely northwest Europe and North-America, which causes potential limitations in generalizability of the results, due to specific cultural traits (Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005). A second one, is the limited validation of the list of critical factors. Next steps in the research, therefore, could include a consultation round of experts, followed by data collection to establish a larger sample, in order to perform a quantitative causal analysis and increase understanding of (relative) importance of the critical factors, as well as to develop a more solid evaluation methodology.
15 Bibliography
Almirall, E. and Wareham, J. (2008). Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and Applicability. The Electronical Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10: 21-46.
Almirall, E. and Wareham, J. (2011) Living Labs: Arbiters of Mid and Ground-Level Innovation, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(1): 87-102.
Almirall, E., Lee, M., and Wareham, J. (2012) Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Innovation Methodologies. Technology Innovation Management Review, September 2012: 12-18.
Amsterdam Region Care & ICT (2013) Innovating in care in collaboration with the end-user. Amsterdam.
Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P. and Piirainen, T. (2010) Exploring Quadruple Helix. Outlining user-oriented innovation models. University of Tampere, Institute of Social Research.
BDC (Business Development Bank of Canada) (2013) Mapping your future growth: Five Game Changing Consumer Trends (accessed December 20 2013).
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and A. Ståhlbröst (2009). Living lab – an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. Int. Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(4): 356–370.
Bjerregaard, T. (2010) Industry and academia in convergence. Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration, Technovation 30 (2): 100-108.
Bruneel, J., d’Este, P., Salter, A. (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university, industry collaboration, Research Policy 39: 858-868.
Bruijn, H. de, Heuvelhof, E. and R. in ’t Veld (2010) Process Management: Why Project Management Fails in Complex Decision-Making Processes, 2nd edition. Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer.
Chesbrough, H. (2003) Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dubé, P., Sarrailh, J. and I. Kostecki (2013) Introduction to living labs. Montréal inVibo. Quebec: Umvelt.
Dutilleul, B., F. A. J. Birrer and W. Mensink, (2010). Unpacking European Living Labs: Analysing Innovation’s Social Dimension. Central European Journal of Public Policy 4: 60-85.
EC (European Commission) (2011) Horizon 2020. The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. Communication from the Commission. Brussels.
EC (European Commission) (2012) Digital Agenda for Europe. A Europe 2020 Initiative. Brussels.
http://ec.europe.eu/digital-agenda/en/about-smart-cities (accessed June 15 2014).
ENoll (European Network of Living Labs) (2014) About us. www.openlivinglabs.eu/aboutus
(accessed April 15 2014).
Etzkowitz, H. (2008) The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. London: Routledge.
Eriksson, M., V. P. Niitamo and S. Kulkki (2005). State-of-the art in utilizing Living Labs to user-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Lulea University of Technology.
Fahy, C., M. Ponce de Leon, A. Ståhlbröst and Schaffers, H. (eds). (2007). Services of living labs and their networks. Expanding the Knowledge Economy. Amsterdam, IOS Press.
Flyvbjerg, B., M. K. S. Holm and S.L. Buhl (2005). How (in) accurate are demand forecasts in public works projects? The case of transportation. Journal of the American Planning Association 71(2), 131-146.
Følstad, A. (2008). Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10, 99-131. Geenhuizen, M. van (2013) From Ivory Tower to Living Lab. Accelerating the Use of University
16
Geenhuizen, M. van (2014) Critical Factors in Health Innovation in Cities: From Ivory Tower to Living Lab. Int. Journal of Global Environmental Issues (in print)
Goddard, J. and Vallance, P. (2013) The university and the city, Routledge.
Guldemond, N. and Geenhuizen, M. van (2012) Critical Factors in ‘Livings Labs’ for New Health Concepts and Medical Technology, CESUN Int. Engineering Systems Symposium, Delft, NL, 18-20 June 2012 (www.cesun2012.tudelft.nl).
HICD (2013) Healthcare Innovation Centre Denmark,
http://www.regionh.dk/HealthcareInnovationCentre/Menu/. (accessed September 13 2013) Hippel, E. von (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32: 791–
805.
Hippel, E. von (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005) Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind. (revised.2nd edition) New York: McGraw Hill.
Hoven, J. van den, Jacob, K., Nielsen, L., Roure, F., Rudze, L., Stilgoe, J. (2013) Options for Strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. EC Expert Group Report.
I360Medical (2013) www.i360medical.com (last accessed 03-01-2013)
Jenkins, H. (2006) Convergence culture. Where old and new media collide. New York, New York University Press.
Katzy, B.R., Pawar, K.S. and K-D Thoben (2012) Editorial: A Living Lab Research Agenda, Int. J. Product Development, 17(1/2) 1-7.
Kehayia, E., Swaine, B. et al. (2014) Creating a rehabilitation living lab to optimize participation and inclusion for persons with physical disabilities, ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research, 8: 151-157.
Kop, W. (2011). User guide: Smart Care and participation by specific user groups. Eindhoven, P. Advisors.
Leminen, S. and Westerlund, M. (2012) Towards Innovation in Living Labs Network. International Journal of Product Development, 17 (1/2) 43-59.
Leminen, S. (2013) Coordination and Participation in Living Lab Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, November 2013, pp. 1-12.
Leminen, S. Westerlund, M. and Nystrøm, A-G (2014) On Becoming Creative Consumers – User Roles in Living Labs Networks International Journal of Technology Marketing, 9(1): 33-52. Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H. (2003) Can ‘the public’ be considered as a fourth helix in
university-industry-government relations? Report on the Fourth Triple Helix Conference, 2002, Science and Public Policy 30, No 1, p. 55-61.
Medical Fieldlab (2013) www.medicalfieldlab.nl (accessed September 13 2013)
Nambisan, P. and S. Nambisan (2009). Models of consumer value co-creation in health care. Health Care Management Review 34(4): 344-354.
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L. and D. Loorbach (2013) Urban Transition Labs: co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50: 111-122.
Nooteboom, B. (2009) A Cognitive Theory of the Firm. Learning, Governance and Dynamic Capabilities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Nystrøm, A-G, Leminen, S., Westerlund, M. and Kortelainen, M. (2014) Actor Roles and Role Patterns Influencing Innovation in Living Labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3): 483-495.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., Stilgoe, J. (2012) Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society, Science and Public Policy, 39 (6): 751-760.
Pro Inno Europe (2011) European Innovation Scoreboard. Maastricht: MERIT.
Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004) Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3): 6-14.
RCSI. i360 Centre for Innovation in Surgical Technology. Last accessed 13-3-2013, from
http://www.rcsi.ie/index.jsp?p=105&n=317.
Ruff, S.A. and Jacobsen, E. (2012). Healthcare Innovation Lab. Copenhagen: Healthcare Innovation Centre.
17
Shah, S. G. S., I. Robinson and S. AIShawi (2009). Developing medical device technologies from users' perspectives: A theoretical framework for involving users in the development process. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 25(4): 514-521.
Soetanto, D. P. and van Geenhuizen, M. (2011). Social networks, university spin-off growth and promises of living labs. Regional Science, Policy and Practice 3(3): 305-321.
Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Dept. of Business Administration and Social Sciences. Luleå University of Technology.
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.
Tidd, J., and Bessant, J. (2009) Managing Innovations. Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 4th edition, John Wiley.
Thomke, S. and E. von Hippel (2002). Customers as innovators - A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review 80 (4): 74-81.
Walt, vander J.S., A.A.K. Buitendag, J.J. Zaaiman and J.C. Jansen van Vuuren (2009). Community Living Labs as a Collaborative Innovation Environment. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 6: 421-436.
Waag Society/F. Kresin (2009) Living Labs: Hope or Hype. FrankWatching.
WHO (World Health Organization) (2008) Health and environment, managing the linkages for sustainable development: a toolkit for decision-makers. WHO/United Nation Environment Programme (UNEP) synthesis report. Health and Environment Linkages Initiative (HELI), Geneva, WHO.
