Theoretical and Methodological Living Lab Challenges Papers
Prof. Tuija Hirvikoski – Laurea University
- Organisational dynamic capabilities of Living Lab actors – learning capability, innovation and development capability, etc.
- Individual competences of all the actors involved in living lab activities
- Integrating learning theories to LL theories/frameworks.
- Impact evaluation of Living Labs – integration of quantitative and qualitative methods to tackle the issue of evidence based Living Lab services, including Ethical codes of conduct: implementation and evaluation.
- Means to ensure shared meaning creation and increase of trust capital in Living Labs: Methods and tools.
- Ontological and epistemological foundations of Living Labs – social constructionist/feminist/realist/positivist/hermeneutic interpretation of Living Labs.
Blockchain, a promising way for scaling up co-creation of innovation from local to global
by Eric Seulliet
Track: Innovation Paper
- Collective Intelligence Motivation
Abstract. It is difficult to mobilize co-creating users over time: lack of motivation to contribute, difficulty in capitalizing on contributions. The outcomes of traditional co-creation processes are therefore often limited in scope. The use of blockchain is one way to overcome these limitations and scale up. By allowing contributors to be recognized or even remunerated, the blockchain produces a “nudge” effect thanks to the climate of trust it creates. Thanks to the traceability and capitalization of contributions, the blockchain also makes it possible to make the most of them by promoting their recombinations. Finally, the blockchain allows new approaches to intellectual property to be unleashed and new types of organizations (DAO) based on sharing to emerge.
Cross-cultural Differences in Living Lab Research
by Nele A.J. De Witte, Ingrid Adriaensen, Leen Broeckx, Vicky Van Der Auwera and Tom Van Daele
Track: Full Research
- Cross-border research
- Group dynamics
- Living Labs
Abstract. Cross-border collaboration is an important part of living lab research, as circumstances and requirements for services and products can vary greatly depending on the region in which they are introduced. While cross-cultural differences can be of interest for these studies, they can also be confounding factors for data collection and analysis. Dissimilarities in the recruitment and in the participation of end users in different regions could influence the outcomes of international studies with multiple implementation sites across countries. Therefore, the current survey study investigates awareness of such cross-cultural differences. The sample consists of 36 living labs from 20 countries. Results show that regional differences are reported in terms of participants’ motivation for participation and the impact of gender, age, professional status, and socio-economic status on participants’ contribution. Additionally, regional differences influence whether a moderator should take the role of a facilitator or a more dominant guide of the process during group sessions. Implementing well-chosen strategies for recruitment, for grouping, and for supporting equal contribution in sessions could improve the quality of international living lab research, while still maintaining sufficient standardisation.
Developing a test and validation protocol based on quasi-experiment and analogue observation to evaluate the performance of a Living Lab output
by Benjamin Nanchen, Emmanuel Fragnière, Patrick Kuonen, Joëlle Mastellic, Randolf Ramseyer and Henk Verloo
- Living Lab
- Analogue observation
- R&D for Services
- Co- design
Abstract. Since its introduction in the nineties, the concept of Living Lab has evolved from a space where technological innovations is tested directly by users for an innovation eco-system. The creation of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) in 2006 characterizes this evolution. Although Living Lab are well disseminated around the world, there is a lack of consensus on how a Living Lab should be organized (macro level), which types of projects are considered as Living Lab projects (meso-level) and which methods should be used (micro level) (Schuurman, et al., 2015). Furthermore, Living Lab need tools to evaluate the performance of its output (Schuurman, et al., 2015). Therefore, we developed here a quasi-experimental research design framework using analogue observation to evaluate the performance of a Living Lab output. In this paper, we illustrate how to operationalize this research design framework in a case study that aims at introducing Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) in a city in Switzerland.
Identifying Living Lab orchestrators’ individual-level skills
by Anne Äyväri, Tuija Hirvikoski and Heidi Uitto
- Living Lab
Abstract. This paper sheds light on the individual skills needed to orchestrate open Living Labs networks and activities. Since orchestrators (also called mediators) are people working on the interface of the macro, meso and micro levels of Living Labs, and in between various stakeholders such as universities, organizations, NGOs and citizens, specific skill sets are needed in order to enhance inclusiveness, balance, and communication among the different parties and to improve the sustainability of the Living Labs’ projects according to the responsible research and innovation principles. Based on the literature, the skills are classified in three partially overlapping bundles: first, skills in building relationships, networks and ecosystems; second, skills in maintaining them; and finally, skills in executing multistakeholder innovation processes. As a summary of the literature review, a preliminary framework of orchestrator skills is presented.
Improving Quality in Higher Education by using Living Lab Methods
by Karin Axelsson, Yvonne Eriksson and Anders Berglund
Track: Full Research
- Lifelong learning
- Living Lab
- Higher education
- User involvement
Abstract. This conceptual paper presents a Living Lab model of how university, society and organisation may strengthen the co-creation capacity on regional and international level to improve quality in higher education.
Our conclusions are that successful co-creation between universities and society/organizations is built on mutual contribution, knowledge sharing as well as engagement from all involved. Here, living lab methods can help improve quality. Further, from a university perspective, a challenge is to keep the engagement in the project from all involved, and to assure an equal status between stakeholders. This calls for a skill in how to conduct project in co-creation with several partners. A skill that has to be taught to students as well as to teachers and researchers
Yvonne Eriksson (PhD) is Professor in Information Design, leader of MDH Living Lab at Innovation and Product Realization (IPR) and Vice Dean of the School of Innovation, Design and Engineering at Mälardalen Univeristy. The main focus of her research is visual communication and its relation to the perceptual/cognitive processes that are involved in interpretation of visuals and building of milieus. She has special interest in methodology and development of methods for design and co-creation.
LivingLab 65+ - Co-creation with retirement and nursing homes
by Veronika Hämmerle, Stephanie Lehmann, Cora Pauli and Sabina Misoch
- Living Lab
- Retirement and nursing homes
- Technology testing
- Nursing staff
Abstract. In Switzerland many seniors live in retirement and nursing homes. At the same time on the global level the healthcare sector is suffering from a shortage of nursing staff. Although technology use could be a promising strategy, its potential seems not yet fully exploited. To shed light on the specific needs and requirements of retirement and nursing homes and their inhabitants regarding technology use and technology implementation, we have extended our Living Lab approach and cooperate with retirement and nursing homes throughout Switzerland. This paper discusses challenges of this test environment and strategies to overcome them. Furthermore, the Living Lab approach itself shall be evaluated as a method to facilitate technology implementation in care institutions.
Living Labs for small retailers – in search of methodology and tools
by Heleen Geerts, Gabriela Bustamante Castillo and Anja Overdiek
- Retail Field Lab
- Lab evaluation
- Lab maturity
- Lab best practices
Abstract. City centers all over Europe are challenged by the effects of recent developments in consumer behavior and online retail. Collaborations of municipalities, knowledge institutions, retailers and consumers are blooming up in many regions to help this transition and find solutions which fit both in the future of retail entrepreneurs and employees and in that of consumers and their social space. These collaborations often take the form of a Living Lab, but don’t always fit easily in Living Lab or field lab definitions. Future-Proof Retail, a network of eleven retail labs in the Netherlands, currently researches a comprehensive and practical framework for this kind of labs. First findings include definitions, maturity scores and guidelines for stakeholder engagement. These findings will be presented as work in progress, to share, but also to discuss the methodological approach and possible shortcomings.