DELIVERABLE  
  Project Acronym: Grant Agreement number: Project Title: APOLLON 250516 Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

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

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

   
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P C Public Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services X

 

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

             

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

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This  deliverable  contains  original  unpublished  work  except  where  clearly  indicated   otherwise.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

2  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1  

Table of Contents
1.   2.   3.   4.  
4.1   4.2   4.3   4.4   4.5   4.6  

Summary........................................................................................................................................4   Introduction .................................................................................................................................7   Networking  theories..................................................................................................................9   Living  Lab  networks ............................................................................................................... 11  
Towards  networks  of  Living  Labs .................................................................................................11   Living  Lab  networks  –  definition  and  scope ..............................................................................13   Current  networks  of  Living  Labs ...................................................................................................14   Lessons  learned...................................................................................................................................18   SWOT  analysis  LL  networks ............................................................................................................20   Creating  the  Apollon  Methodology  Framework .......................................................................21  

5.  

Categorization  of  the  APOLLON  Methodology  Framework ....................................... 22   5.1   Elements  of  the  Apollon  Methodology  Framework.................................................................22   5.2   Apollon  methodology  categories...................................................................................................24   5.2.1   Connect.............................................................................................................................................................. 24   5.2.2   Set  Boundaries  and  engage....................................................................................................................... 25   5.2.3   Support  and  govern ..................................................................................................................................... 26   5.2.4   Manage  and  track.......................................................................................................................................... 27   5.3   Summary................................................................................................................................................28   SOTA  analysis  –  methodology.............................................................................................. 28   Catalogue  of  State  of  the  Art................................................................................................. 30  
Connect...................................................................................................................................................30   Set  boundaries  and  engage..............................................................................................................36   Support  and  Govern ...........................................................................................................................46   Manage  and  Track ..............................................................................................................................59  

6.   7.  
7.1   7.2   7.3   7.4  

8.   9.        

Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 67   References.................................................................................................................................. 69  

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

3  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

1. Summary
  In October 2006 the Helsinki Manifesto was issued stating for the first time the need for networked Living Labs as an instrument to facilitate innovation and (economic) growth. Consequently a European Network of Living Labs has been proposed that act as “a crossregional, cross-national and pre-market network, which creates multi-stakeholder co-operation models for public-private citizen-partnerships (PPCPs).” In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. These Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach. Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on the European, the regional, and the national levels which mainly exchange high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation. The next step that is needed for those Living Labs to move from awareness creation to true collaboration, is to implement a more detailed analysis of Europe-wide user, market and technology characteristics and an economically more valuable mode of experimentation, by networking, comparing and scaling up cross-border Living lab networks. It is of particular importance to facilitate the participation of SMEs including micro-entrepreneurs both as users and suppliers in this process. The establishment of further networked systems for open userdriven research, development and innovation was also clearly recommended by the Living Lab portfolio Leadership group in its Living Lab roadmap 2007-2010.1 When looking to the criteria for becoming a member of LL networks it’s remarkable that there are no specific criteria related to the network aspect itself. Besides the fact that the Living Labs need to have international networking expertise no criteria are stated with regard to collaboration, common procedures etc. . Because of this high level approach and lack of clear collaboration criteria, it is difficult for the network to move beyond being just a cluster of Living Labs. Also the network does not impose any rules on common tools or methods to be used when becoming a member. When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main objectives are similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network followed by harmonizing an integrating tools and methods between the partners. Finally, a third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed.                                                                                                                

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

 
Final version, 21/05/2010  

4  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are still in the exploratory phase. When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs. For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centred research methods that can be applied, than a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs. The potential as well as simultaneously the challenge of Living Labs or other collaborative innovation network research is the fact that the phenomena can be approached from various angles with various research methodologies, disciplines and theoretical foundations. In this context, we have considered open models as the most appropriate theoretical foundations for the APOLLON work. This approach relates to all the approaches labelled differently such as open innovation, open networks, open platforms, open business models (Munsch 2009). The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations: 1. New ideas can stem from a diversity of partners which represents more perspectives than would have been possible otherwise 2. Business and financial risk can be alleviated by the inclusion of more partners and a broader market scale can be achieved by joining forces 3. Time to market is boosted by contributions made by other contributors in the ecosystem, However, taking an open approach also involve issues which can be categorized into three themes: culture, contract and competition (Munsch 2009). Organizations need to carefully assess the culture of their partners to ensure that they can work effectively with each other for a longer period of time. Important to note is that partnering require mutual benefits. Living Lab networks can be defined as managed collaboration networks (as opposite to selforganizing networks), which feature internal transparency and direct communication. Members of a network collaborate and share knowledge directly with each other, rather than through hierarchies. They come together with a shared vision because they are intrinsically motivated to do so and seek to collaborate in some way to advance an idea or a concept. When we look at who has initiated the network it has mostly been a bottom-up process. The various Living Labs themselves have organised and set-up the network in place. The main motivation for doing this was a certain need that they encountered to get to know the other initiatives as well as the need for “lessons learned” in order to grow themselves. Based on the current state of the art knowledge APOLLON creates a harmonized methodology for creating, operating, managing and evaluating living lab networks. The consortium develops a scalable framework for systematic living lab network initiation, support and management for the thematic Living Lab networks in APOLLON project, as well as for ENoLL and other Living Lab networks in the future.

5  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 We show how organizations leverage their expertise and combine customers and suppliers into a seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader crossborder ecosystem of Living Lab networks. The proposed categorization for Living Lab network creation and management will apply for various layers, and serve the living lab community at large. The APOLLON methodology focuses especially on Living Lab network level and cross-border collaboration, rather than on single Living Lab level, which in itself is already a collaborative network as such. There are several alternative approaches to network methodology creation, ranging from stages of life cycle approach to layers of interaction, categorization by use cases, phases of development or Living Lab maturity, like the description of a Living Lab life cycle approach developed based on project C@R. Building on this model, in this context, we have selected a holistic Living Lab management approach, and divided Living Lab management into four categories: 1. Connect - relates to activities and considerations in the start up phase of collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and motivating for people and can bring in new members. 2. Set Boundaries and Engage - needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well as negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this process is measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for individual members. Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing national and European networks need to be defined. 3. Support and Govern - includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational work within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network will provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations. 4. Manage and Track - refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the network engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including customer, society & people and performance related results. Performance evaluation is closely related to the network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living Labs can have very different objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to policy implications. The objective of the categorization is to establish a common approach to methodology, and divide the related tasks and elements to easily managed entities. The proposed categorization will be applied in all APOLLON WP1 (Methodology and Tools) related tasks (State of the art, methodology framework, collaboration model, evaluation framework, future recommendations and roadmap).

6  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 This not only ensures a common approach and understanding across different tasks and work packages but mainly guarantees consistent findings that can be integrated into the bigger picture which ultimately manifests with the validated and tested APOLLON methodology framework at the end of the project. The categorization along the lifecycle of cross border Living Lab networks is therefore also reflected in the questionnaire that have been designed for semi-structured interviews within and outside of the APOLLON consortium. Parts of the questions have not been strictly applied but served as guidelines for an open discussion with the interviewee. As the interviewees have been chosen according to their proven record of experience and expertise within the European Living Lab community and network, several inputs have been captured that not directly corresponds with one of the questions but go beyond the initially requested information. One of the main targets of the interviews was to capture qualitative information on existing Living Lab networking initiatives in order to derive a rating of how successful methodologies, tools or organizational structures have been applied in real life. To a certain extent relevant methodologies, tools, governance and organizational structures are existing applicable at all stages of the LL networking lifecycle. They range e.g. from technological solutions (e.g. reference architectures for Collaborative Working Environments (CWEs), collaboration tools) to common frameworks and models (e.g. Monitoring & Assessment, roles & responsibilities). The Support & Govern category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art. Obviously the need to co-innovate across 2 or more Living Labs has brought up initial methodologies and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methodologies and tools has not been investigated systematically and offer big potential for the APOLLON consortium to take them to the next level. In general the potential of available methodologies & tools and structures adding value to participating Living Labs of a synergetic network seems to be huge. In any case, no one of the interviewed experts have provided final answers on the constitution of a methodological framework for cross border Living Lab networks and further research on the ground need to be invested. A simple SWOT analysis indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methodologies and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across 2 or more Living Labs. Therefore extensive experience with some promising methods and tools are missing despite of their obvious applicability in a network of cross border Living Labs. At least some of the available Living Lab methods and tools have been well applied in real life on individual level but not in a networking context. The modification of these methods and tools for networking purposes offers a good starting point for the APOLLON methodology framework.  

2. Introduction
 
7   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 The Living Labs are an instrument through which the innovation process can be improved by establishing business-citizens-government partnerships that enable users to participate in R&D at an early stage. European Living Labs are at the forefront of defining and putting into practice this new approach within the context of their local ecosystem. Currently, Europe-wide federation and networking between Living Labs are being or have been setup, in order to exchange information, looking at harmonizing best practices for setting up and conducting individual Living Lab research. However the Living Labs in those networks are still operating and collaborating across Europe at an individual project level. It is commonly thought that strongly increased cross-border Living Lab collaboration would potentially yield huge added value for Europe, as it enables firms, most particularly SMEs, to participate in domain-specific innovation ecosystems at a European scale, without losing sight of local circumstances and idiosyncrasies. Therefore, it is needed that these networks of Living labs are working on a more intensive, permanent and scalable collaboration, using common methodologies, tools and sustainable organizational structures for cross-border domain-specific Living Lab networks. As part of APOLLON, work package 1 deals with the development of a horizontal methodology that enables and supports the ramp up and operation of a cross-border network of Living Labs. The APOLLON methodology will build on best practices and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab network initiatives and the vertical domain-specific Living Lab networks set-up as the four experiments within APOLLON. It will consist of an adaptable framework for planning, specifying, building, and implementing practical and theoretical aspects of Living Lab networks. The APOLLON methodology and tool set aims at providing support and help for sharing and harmonizing Living Lab platforms between thematic cross-border clusters of European Living Labs as far as relevant with the practical realities of the available technologies, actors and business environments. APOLLON methodology will thus contribute to finding synergies between the actors, scaling up lead markets, facilitating strategic partnerships between innovative SMEs and micro-entrepreneurs, orchestrating systematic RDI processes and stimulating crossborder open innovation in Europe. The APOLLON methodology will address interoperability challenges in cross-border Living Labs networks through different levels. First, on a technological level APOLLON will investigate to what extent a common platform or technology will help to solve these interoperability challenges. Second, on the organizational and regulatory policy level APOLLON will investigate to what extent the eco-systems of each Living Lab can and should be similar. Finally, on the research level the project will look at to what extent common tools and techniques are required for cross-border networks.

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

8  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 cross-border networks of Living Labs), existing Living Lab network initiatives, as well as from the thematic Living Lab networks within the APOLLON project. The document is structured as follows: Chapter 1 and 2 provide a summary and introduction respectively. Chapter 3 deals with networking theories and gives some theoretical background information on open innovation environments and principal considerations regarding networking initiatives. Chapter 4 focuses on Living Lab networks and their relevance and scope for APOLLON purposes. In chapter 5 an initial categorization along the lifecycle of LL networks is proposed that will be applied to this state of the art analysis, to baseline studies for M&A purposes, to the requirements gathering from the vertical experiments and to the APOLLON methodology framework. Chapter 6 reflects on the methodology being applied to derive the findings of this state of the art analysis. It states the general approach, chosen initiatives and projects, conducted expert interviews and the common validation and consolidation of the findings. Chapter 7 lists the main findings of this state of the art analysis in table style indicating the APOLLON categorization, concept category, the finding’s origin, a description of main results, a SWOT analysis, references and the relevance for the APOLLON methodology framework. Chapter 8 comprises the main conclusion of this SOTA analysis and tries to position this deliverable with regards to the upcoming future work within APOLLON.

3. Networking theories
It is widely recognized that the autonomous activities of single organizations cannot produce those radical, cross-disciplinary and architectural innovations that would sufficiently address the increasingly sophisticated needs of users (Normann & Ramírez 1998; Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). Globalization, democratization of knowledge and extensive utilization of developed information and communication technologies have enabled users to demonstrate increased power and influence over the content of available products and services (Gassmann, 2006). Consequently, the drivers for innovation have changed, now emphasizing increasingly value adding co-creation with customers, accessing and combining globally dispersed knowledge using advanced ICT solutions, and forming collaborative networks and partnerships with new types of dynamics between public sector, large companies and entrepreneurs (Jorgen Rosted, 2009). The potential as well as simultaneously the challenge of Living Lab or other collaborative innovation network research is the fact that the phenomena can be approached from various
9   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 angles with various research methodologies, disciplines and theoretical foundations. In this context, we have considered open models as the most appropriate theoretical foundations for APOLLON work. This approach relates to all the approaches labeled in differently such as open innovation, open networks, open platforms, open business models (Munsch 2009). A common theme for these open approaches is to open up companies and to advocate establishing a broad ecosystem whereby external parties are much more engaged and involved in conceptualization and implementation of innovative new ideas in a blend of formal and informal matters. The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations: 1. New ideas can stem from a diversity of partners which represents more perspectives than would have been possible otherwise 2. Business and financial risk can be alleviated by the inclusion of more partners and a broader market scale can be achieved by joining forces 3. Time to market is boosted by contributions made by other contributors in the ecosystem, However, taking an open approach also involve issues which can be categorized into three themes: culture, contract and competition (Munsch 2009). 1. Culture: In this theme, elements such as different perspectives on speed, resource commitment, organizational changes, and different terminology. a. Speed: When an open approach is applied with more engaged partners, the complexity increases. b. Priorities: The more partners working together, the more diverse priorities and resource commitments need to be handled. c. Common understanding: The open approach also requires coordination about terminology between the different partners. Partners from different cultural (both organizational and national) contexts. If this is not addressed, serious technical issues may arise, hence, appropriate time and effort needs to be devoted to create a common language for effective communication. 2. Contract: Contrary to what the term “open” may imply, detailed agreements that takes into account complexity, intellectual property rights and compliances need to be developed. a. Agreements: Since there is much uncertainty when two, or more, partners decide to join forces to pursue for example a new idea, agreements can be very complex. Issues that need to be handled here are governance, ownership rights, fields of use, exclusivity, resource commitment and potential timing, intellectual property, termination conditions and rights and other contractual conditions. b. Intellectual property: Especially in the area of creating new technology and innovations by implementing an open model, it is important to consider the difficulty of intellectual property rights. It is often unclear what is, or can be, created in these constellations. Hence, it is important to document in detail pre-

10  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 existing properties and how new co-created properties will be owned. Also, splitting fields of use needs to be articulated. c. Compliance: In networks, it is quite common that when two or more partners are involved in the process of bringing an innovation to market, some might have a greater vested interested in its success. To support this process a contract is helpful, but difficult to develop. 3. Competition: In this category it is important to consider, prior to engaging in open approaches, what long-term competitive implications there might be included in the open networking approach. These competitive implications can be related to the direct competition between two or more partners or more indirectly to the more structural changes which might occur. a. Direct competition: Migration to direct competition is the form more frequently observed. In these circumstances, two or more parties come together with complementary capabilities creating or enabling a new technology. While doing so, competencies are transferred between the partners. Important to note here, is that the intentions and interests might be unclear in the beginning or they might change during the process. b. Structural shift competition: An alternative form of competition that can evolve is one where the structural nature of the value chain is changed. Hence, evaluating and choosing one’s partners carefully when entering into an open model is vital. This evaluation should include not only what the partner might bring, but also its likelihood of moving into your market. Also, think about “what if” we were successful with our intentions. Based on the described issues that needs to be handled when an open and networking approach is applied it is important to remember that open models are not a panacea. Organisations need to carefully assess the culture of their partners to ensure that they can work effectively with each other for a longer period of time (Munsch 2009). Important to note is that partnering require mutual benefits.

4. Living Lab networks
 

4.1
 

Towards networks of Living Labs

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

11  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Consequently an European Network of Living Labs has been proposed that act as “a crossregional, cross-national and pre-market network, which creates multi-stakeholder co-operation models for public-private citizen-partnerships (PPCPs).” By so, Europe emphasize on the importance of an open, user-centric and networked innovation environment in Europe. As a first step the creation of a European-wide network of Living Labs has been facilitated through which “emerging knowledge-intensive services, businesses, markets, technologies and even industries for jobs and growth can be developed, tested and validated.”2 The establishment of the European Network of Living Labs is an outcome of the Corelabs project. One of the objectives was to establish a “systematic and organized approach that will ensure that common methodologies and tools are developed across Europe”. The goal was that these tools and methods, used in the various Living Labs would support and facilitate innovation in and across the different Living Labs in order to have a global reach. In order to create such a network that could address these objectives, different (technical) requirements need to be addressed. These requirements are structured into the six key areas that each reflects a basic component that on the level of the network itself needs to be addressed and organized:3 1. Presence / discovery: partners have to be able to 1. Identify other partners and 2. Check the status in terms of resources, operations as well as availability for collaboration 2. Communication and end-to-end connectivity: The Living Labs as well as the various partners within each Living Lab need to have access to sufficient and compatible communication and collaboration tools (e.g. Video conf call system) that facilitates the cooperation between them 3. Interoperability: The Living Labs should use standard protocols in order to establish interoperability across the various, heterogeneous platforms. Also the applications, subject of evaluation in these Living labs, should meet up with certain standards, so that the transfer of them is easy and efficient. The use of Open Standards is one way of achieving this 4. Accessibility: A key element within the Living Lab is their open nature. The network should also facilitate this open access to all Living labs that are member of this network. The access to and within the network could be enhanced via a wider selection of multimodal interfaces and devices as well as network connectivity. This should be guaranteed and seamless 5. Security: With regard to security, the network should ensure that unauthorized access, replication, or modification of information as well as issues arising from potential alteration of data by unauthorized third parties is prevented. This is necessary to built up and guarantee trust between the partners. 6. Knowledge / information management: One of the main elements within the network is the sharing of information and knowledge. The network has to enable and support the exchange of information through various knowledge interfaces.                                                                                                                
2 3

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

12  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 In order to meet up these requirements, the network of Living Labs should, according to the Corelabs study address five technological and mass customization aspects (see table 1). However, when looking at the current state of the different networks in place we notice that these elements are only very limited being tackled on the level of the network itself. Often it is due to the structure of the Living Lab and the infrastructure itself within those Living Labs that some of these aspects are being addressed. For example, by using standard internet protocols in their network infrastructure, the various Living labs are offering a sort of open service architecture. But in none of the existing networks of Living Labs there are specific guidelines, protocols in place that would facilitate this. An interesting case with regard to this are testbeds. Within the network of testbeds (examples are PanLab and OneLab) the objective is to create a common, scalable infrastructure that is interoperable, using open service architecture. These testbeds have, on a network level, installed the proper mechanism that allows them to connect the different testbeds. This enables them to set-up and conduct cross-border testbed activities in an easy and seamless way.

Technological and mass customisation aspects relevent for a network of Living Labs4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Open service architecture that supports intelligent service creation and adaptation Seamless & pervasive environment for service and knowledge discovery Secure, dependable and trustworthy infrastructure Network, device and application interoperability Application Support for variety of interfaces

Table 1 Technological and mass customisation aspects for networked LL

 

4.2

Living Lab networks – definition and scope

Living Lab networks can be defined as managed collaboration networks (as opposite to selforganizing networks), which feature internal transparency and direct communication. Members of a network collaborate and share knowledge directly with each other, rather than through hierarchies. They come together with a shared vision because they are intrinsically motivated to do so and seek to collaborate in some way to advance an idea or a concept. Identified challenges in Living Lab network creation and management include the need for a specific Living Lab research infrastructure and commonly agreed methodology and terminology at the European level. Common methodology and tools for creating and managing such networks would provide SMEs, users and academic community a set of harmonized user-centered research and innovation services (best practices, services, methods, tools, operational and business models                                                                                                                 4  Fahy,  C.  &  Power,  T.  D3.2  Technological  &  Mass  Customisation  –  Deliverable  of  the  Corelabs  project.  http://www.ami-­‐
13   Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 and platforms) and advance the rigor and quality of living lab experimentation in Europe. Thus in order for Living Lab networks to fulfil their function to increase the yield on product and process innovation to accelerate top-line growth reduce time-to-market – through lean processes, a higher yield on designs and faster cycle times ensure compliance – by incorporating customer and regulatory requirements at all stages of the product lifecycle and by automating the process of documenting compliance optimize resources – by gaining greater efficiency through the product lifecycle and digital product and process validation, and leverage globalization – through real-time collaboration with global partners, suppliers and customers

more harmonized, easily accessible and relevant methodologies, models and tools are needed. The importance of common methodologies and tools is highlighted in collaborative multistakeholder environments and when the users are involved in an open innovation process. Open innovation methodologies enable systematic categorization, filtering and analyzing of the qualitative and quantitative user data. The related tools can be considered as a platform for interactions, co-creation and feedback, or wider, as a vehicle for broad social, economic and institutional transformations. In APOLLON WP1 our objective is to create a sound knowledge base of the various methodologies and ICT enabled tools for conducting empirical human-centric RDI work, and empirically validate scientifically proven multi-disciplinary methodologies and platforms for experimenting with people, societies and companies in real-life contexts, when the companies are delegating sustainable control over the service development to outsiders, and establish sustainable user-driven service, product and concept development networks in open and user driven manner.

4.3
 

Current networks of Living Labs

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. These Living Labs do not only differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach. As a first step in networking these initiatives, the exchange of high-level principles and best practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation is now being addressed in a number of national and European projects. Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on the European, the regional, and the national levels (see table). These networks have up till now mainly been focused on creating

14  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 awareness related to the concept of a Living Lab, development of tools and methods to be used in individual Living Labs, the exchange of best practices, and the federation into generic networks.   Level   Europe   Network   European  Network  of  Living   Labs  (ENoLL)  -­‐  °2006   Short  description   The  European  Network  of  Living  Labs   creates  a  platform  where  companies,   public  authorities  and  citizens  can  work   together  on  developing  and  testing  new   technologies,  business  models  and  services   in  real-­‐life  contexts.  Currently  it  embraces   about  220  Living  Labs    

Regional   Nordic-­‐Baltic  Network  of  Living   Nordic  is  a  regional  Living  Lab  network   labs  -­‐  °2007   that  promotes  user-­‐driven  innovation  and   “livinglabbing”  through  national,  Nordic,   European  and  international  networking   and  active  awareness  raising  in  industry,   academia  and  public  sector.  It  currently   consists  of  4  Living  Labs   National   The  Finnish  Network  of  Living   Labs   Open  Forum  (LiTe  Open)  is  a  nationally   and  internationally  networked  program,   with  the  mission  to  develop  true  testing   platforms  for  new  technology-­‐based   product  development.  The  network  covers   14  locations  in  Finland.   The  OLLSE  network  includes  7  Swedish   Living  Labs  representing  a  wide  variety  of   thematic  domains  such  as  energy  saving,   new  media,  healthcare/wellbeing,  urban   challenges,  airport  services,  student   services,  emerging  innovation  cultures  and   more.   This  network  is  the  cooperation  between   several  Dutch  Living  Lab  initiatives   stimulated  by  the  Dutch  Innovation   platform.  It  involves  four  core  Living  Labs,   some  small  Living  Labs  and  governmental   departments  and  municipalities.  The   objective  is  to  strengthen  the  economy  of  

Open  Living  Labs  Sweden,   OLLSE  -­‐  °2007  

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

15  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1   UK  Living  labs   the  Netherlands  by  promoting  it  as  an   international  testbed  and  Living  Lab.   This  network  consists  of  the  UK  Digital   Challenge  Network  of  Living  Labs  (UK-­‐DC-­‐ NoLL)  which  networks  8  geographically-­‐ focused  Living  Labs  in  England  and  4   university-­‐based  Living  labs.     This  network  consists  of  8  Living  Labs  that   are  also  a  member  of  the  ENoLL.  The   network  is  focusing  on  e-­‐Inclusion,   economic  regeneration  and  service   transformation.  Ii  developed  an  open   innovation  approach  within  local  strategic   partnerships,  bringing  together  local   authorities,  regional  development   agencies,  government  departments,   research  institutions,  businesses  (both   large  enterprises  and  SMEs)  and  the   voluntary  and  community  (NGO)  sector  

Portuguese  Network  of  Living   Labs  

Table  2    

Overview  of  existing  networks  of  Living  Labs  

  These emerging networks based on geographical proximity again indicate the dynamic towards further collaboration between Living Labs. Also, several of these networks have moved, often in embryonic form, towards grouping Living Labs on a domain-specific basis. These experiences strongly indicate the need for optimizing efforts by grouping thematically clustered Living Labs across Europe. Sharing experiences and lessons learned as well as tools and methodologies between Living Labs communities is important at this stage to be able to capitalize on the effort spent. The networks currently are still not focusing on this. The next step that is needed for those Living Labs to move from awareness creation to true collaboration, is to implement a more detailed analysis of Europe-wide user, market and technology characteristics and an economically more valuable mode of experimentation, by networking, comparing and scaling up cross-border Living lab networks. It is of particular importance to facilitate the participation of SMEs including micro-entrepreneurs both as users and suppliers in this process. The establishment of further networked systems for open userdriven research, development and innovation was also clearly recommended by the Living Lab portfolio Leadership group in its Living Lab roadmap 2007-2010.5

                                                                                                                5  http://www.tssg.org/archives/2007/03/corelabs.html  
16   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 But when looking on how these networks have been established and on which base they selected and recruited their members, we do so a lot of differences. With regard to the criteria for becoming a member the networks are not always that transparent. The European Network of Living Labs has, as one of the few, defined a set of criteria that enables them evaluate the candidate Living Labs that want to join. When looking at these criteria, two important conclusions can be made: 1. The   criteria   are   not   strictly   defined.   There   are   no   detailed   criteria   mentioned   in   terms  of  scale,  operations  etc...   2. There   are   no   specific   criteria   related   to   the   network   aspect   itself.   Besides   the   fact   that  the  Living  Labs  need  to  have  international  networking  expertise  no  criteria  are   stated  with  regard  to  collaboration,  common  procedures  etc...   Because   of   this   high   level   approach   and   lack   of   clear   collaboration   criteria,   it   is   more   difficult   for   the   network   to   move   beyond   being   just   a   cluster   of   Living   Labs.   Also   the   network  do  not  impose  any  rules  on  common  tools  or  methods  to  be  used  when  becoming  a   member.  Here  the  network  should  play  a  more  dominant,  steering  role  in  order  to  be  able   to   create   an   environment   in   which   corss   border   research   within   the   different   Living   Labs   can  be  established.    
Selection  criteria  used  by  Enoll  for  the  acceptance  of  4th  wave  candidates  
Evidence  of  co-­‐created  values  from  research,  development  and  innovation   Values/Services  offered/provided  to  LL  actors   Measures  to  involve  users   Reality  of  usage  contexts,  where  the  LL  runs  its  operations   User-­‐centricity  within  the  entire  service  process   Full  product  lifecycle  support  -­‐  capability  &  maturity   LL  covers  several  entities  within  value-­‐chain(s)   Quality  of  user-­‐driven  innovation  methods  and  tools   Availability  of  required  technology  and/or  test  beds   Evidence  of  expertise  gained  from  the  Living  Lab  operations   Level  of  own  commitment  to  open  innovation  process   IPR  principles  supporting  capability  and  openness   Openness  towards  new  partners  &  investors  

17  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

4.4
 

Lessons learned

When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main objective for all of these is similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network. Subsequently, the activities are targeted to facilitate and achieve this. The harmonization and integration of tools and methods between the partners are considered as a next step in the cooperation between the members of the network. The objective here is to have a set of tools, methods or even infrastructure that enables to exchange comparable information, to perform research in a similar way within the various Living labs that are part of the network. Finally, a third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed. However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are in still in the exploratory phase. This is the case for e.g. EnoLL, Inoll,etc. .When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs. For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centered research methods that can be applied, then a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs. Due to the fact that these networks are young and therefore are still looking about how they want to address the objectives, there are still a lot of open issues. The elements the networks want to address are: -­‐ -­‐ -­‐ Open and transparent internal communication between the partners of the network and avoiding in-house clustering Sustainability of the network – both organizational as well as financial How to deal with the mix of different types of Living labs within the network

18  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 -­‐ Clear and well defined rules and procedures to collaborate (within an international context)

The scope of the initiatives is dominated by the timeframe. Some of the networks (EnoLL Nordic, Finlab,…) are project based and funded. The funding and the time these projects are defined do affect the activities of these networks. Although that the project approach has set clear objectives that have to be met at the end of the project, it is not always clear what happens next. In other words, the sustainability of the networks is unsure (partly depending on the funding). EnoLL, that has started as an objective within Corelabs, has had to find new ways of organizing itself after the Corelabs funding ended (legal organisation structure, membership fees,…). As this has only recently been initiated it is too early to tell whether this approach is successful.  

 
Figure  4.1   Layered  objectives  Network  of  Living  Labs  

  Most of the Living Lab network initiatives have only recently started. Therefore are still focusing on facilitating the exchange of experiences and “how to’s”. Therefore the initiatives are also confronted with a number of open issues, mainly with regard to procedures and practices to collaborate with each other. There is a lack of clear defined rules and procedures within the network that determine how partners should collaborate with each other. The result is that this currently happens on an ad-hoc base. The risk is of such approach is the possible creation of “silo’s” or clusters within the network, where a small group of Living Labs always collaborate between themselves. When we look at who has initiated the network, then we see that in all of the cases, that this has been a bottom-up process. The various Living Labs themselves have organised and set-up the network in place. The main motivation for doing this was a certain need that they encountered to
19   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 get to know the other initiatives as well as the need for “lessons learned” in order to grow themselves. Important to recognize is that, next to this bottom-up process, the networks have been supported by a “leading partner”. Such leading partner appears to be crucial in the set-up of the network. The role of leading partner ranges in the various different from universities, living labs to governmental agencies.

4.5
 

SWOT analysis LL networks

 
Figure  4.2   SWOT  -­  analysis  existing  networks  of  Living  Labs  

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

20  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

4.6

Creating the Apollon Methodology Framework

Based on the current state of the art knowledge we will create a harmonized APOLLON methodology for creating, operating, managing and evaluating living lab networks. We present a scalable framework for systematic living lab network initiation, support and management for the thematic Living Lab networks in APOLLON project, as well as for ENoLL and other Living Lab networks in the future. We show how organizations leverage their expertise and combine customers and suppliers into a seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader crossborder ecosystem of Living Lab networks. We further present model for engaging supporting partners and other external entities into the development work. Adapting the Collaborative knowledge network approach, Living Lab networks represent core collaborative innovation networks, which operate in close collaboration with related communities and supporting partners (learning networks) and interest groups (users, potential members).

Figure 4.3

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

In Apollon project the supporting partners represent the collaborative learning networks, whereas EnoLL and other related communities would represent the collaborative interest networks. The objective is for the ecosystem they create is a a high-speed feedback loop in which the innovative results of networks are immediately taken up and tested, refined or rejected by learning and
21   Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

5. Categorization of the APOLLON Methodology Framework
 

5.1
 

Elements of the Apollon Methodology Framework

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

Figure 5.1

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

Apollon methodology is especially focused on Living Lab network level and cross-border collaboration, rather than on single Living Lab level, which in itself is already a collaborative network as such. Apollon methodology will have several impact layers, including: Apollon level methodology, which will be generic level methodology, featuring rules and guidelines that apply for various types of cross-border experimentation in all types of Living Lab networks. Apollon methodology will emerge from State of the art knowledge in Living Lab networks, enriched by knowledge emerging from Apollon thematic pilots, and validated in Apollon project in project level.

22  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Methodologies specific to thematic networks. Apollon thematic networks reflect those of ENoLL networks, and thus the achieved results will be further elaborated and developed in ENoLL context after Apollon validation. Thematic methodologies will build on the generic Apollon methodology and be as harmonized as possible, even with different emphasis.

This multi-layer structure will enable us to improve the relevance of the methodologies for various domains and target groups. However, due to the complexity of this set up, the methodology needs to be divided into manageable parts or categories, and thus make it more easily accessible. There are several alternative approaches to network methodology creation, ranging from stages of life cycle approach to layers of interaction, categorization by use cases, phases of development or Living Lab maturity, like the below description of a Living Lab life cycle approach developed based on flag ship project C@R.

 
Figure 5.2 Living Lab networks and their management stages

Building on this model, in this context, we have selected a holistic Living Lab management approach, and divided Living Lab management into four categories: 1. Connect 2. Set Boundaries and Engage
23   Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

5.2
5.2.1

Apollon methodology categories
Connect

The first part of the methodology work relates to activities and considerations in the start up phase of collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and motivating for people and can bring in new members. This also includes identifying the ideas, insights and practices that are to be shared in the community at the early phase. It further relates to the issues related to resourcing and the single partner’s maturity, capability and expectations in networking. At this point we create a preliminary design for the community. Thus the focus needs to be on the value of the community both for the network and individual members’ point of view. This includes both value of contributing and value of learning from others (e.g. easier access to information, higher status/reputation of individual members, self-development). The process of setting up the network should be as transparent and inclusive as possible. This stage includes the following tasks: • • • Setting the objectives and mutually agreed goals for the network. Defining roles, responsibilities and operating model for the partners, including initial ideas related to dividing risk and rewards amongst the parties. Identifying and sourcing required sub-networks and supporting parties. The complementary parties needed for successful completion of the work need to be connected to the core group. This task also includes identifying the context of the network and articulating the related other networks and interest groups. Identifying relevant policy framework that will impact the project, and be impacted by the project.

24  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 • Identifying what knowledge to share and how, laying an initial plan for a community repository, identifying ways to capture and store soft knowledge (to be embedded into community practice and stored into relationships). Monuments”: symbols for the identity of community (e.g. logos). Also facilitate creating and developing of own identity within the community. Instruments: an infrastructure that supports interactive communication to enable the processes of constant negotiation of meaning, participation and reification. Points of focus: focal concepts around which the interaction and collaboration will be structured such as engaging projects for community members Launching the community with dedicated community spaces, both private and public (as in the “Seven principles”) and corresponding initial community events

• • • •

Identified critical success factors in the connect stage of the development include: • • • Establishing mutual trust and investing in social capital and social structures Community members with similar interests should be connected together as early as possible The potential coordinators and leader should be identified as early as possible, with proper legitimization and formalization of their role in the community and the organization The managers and officials in organizations should be engaged early., to avoid being “threatening” to established structures in the organization

5.2.2

Set Boundaries and engage

At this stage, the network needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well as negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this process is measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for individual members. Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing national and European networks need to be defined. The network needs to redefine its boundaries, rules for accepting new members and sustaining existing networks. For a successful integration of new members, the network should establish entry routines and requirements for new “admissions” and corresponding processes. The network will further need to seek relationships with outside organizations in order to keep innovating and refining its’ agenda on sustainable bases.

25  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Maintaining trust and the social “glue” is crucial in keeping the network together and alive, therefore it is necessary to clearly define ownerships and issues related to intellectual property rights. In order to rejuvenate the community, the network should keep “renewal” workshops and other similar events on a regular basis. Thus at this stage also the rules and processes for engaging network members on individual as well as organizational level needs to be defined. This includes virtual tools and networking platforms, as well as the social structures and interactions. Identified best practices for engaging collaborative networks include introducing a “stewardship team” for the community, including the roles of: • • • • Facilitator (engaging members, supporting members, providing feedbacks) Knowledge leader (analyzing and summarizing for community, analyzing and recommending for management) Event coordinator (planning regular events, facilitating online events, growing the community) Administrator (generating the inventory, landscaping the resources (ref Kaulback & Bergtholdt)), building and organizing a community repository)

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

5.2.3

Support and govern

Living Lab network support will be among the main focus areas for Apollon WP1 work, since Living Lab services has been an indentified development area for Living Lab community as a whole. Support and govern category includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational work within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network will provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations. Systematically applied methodologies and supporting tools provide companies and other organizations with a controlled environment for collecting, modelling, analyzing and storing qualitative user generated data in various contextual settings, as well as for managing user communities and projects involving target group users. In fact, sustainable methodological

26  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 foundation and research infrastructure are prerequisites for high quality research and experimentation. In regards to Apollon methodology the main questions is the level of agility and detail in the methodology development process due to the complexity of the context. General meaning of the supporting processes however remains the same: supporting ongoing rhythm, milestones and events of the network, creating communications and active dialogue, building and organizing knowledge repository for the community, and enable positive engagement and creativity.

5.2.4

Manage and track

In this context manage and track refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the network engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including customer, society & people and performance related results. Performance evaluation is closely related to the network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living Labs can have very different objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to policy implications. According to (Wenger et al, 2002), communities cannot be measured in conventional ways as traditional methods are not likely “to appreciate the creativity, sharing and self-initiative that are the core how a community creates value”. The value of the knowledge produced by a community is highly dynamic and context-dependent. Also, it is important to keep in mind that not all important parameters can be measured quantitatively. Therefore, at this stage we will focus on providing as a preliminary overview of probes and indicators that can be useful for monitoring a community. However, this set should be tailored and adjusted for individual communities and different contexts. Clear emphasis is on building a multiple criteria for tracking the network, with emphasis on network level benefits, including community related issues, like: • Social networks o Amount/structure of contacts:  Social connections across communities  Networks across national borders o Participation in joint activities o Community Identity: blogs, symbols, conventions, ways of displaying membership  Social awareness Growth o The growth rate of the community (new members per month) o Activity level of existing members

27  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 o Creation of new communities, creation of new networking patterns, connecting 2 earlier unconnected networks etc • Organizational issues/power dynamics o Interactions between 4 community types mentors, learners, enterprise and university, measured both qualitatively and quantitatively o Formal vs actual roles (e.g. who is most active in a discussion) o Is free discussion/exchange ensured? (measuring participations of different members) o What actors are involved, from what organizations and organizational levels

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

5.3

Summary

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

6. SOTA analysis – methodology
  The categorization introduced in chapter 5 has been designed to be applied across different tasks of Work Package 1 and beyond that within the APOLLON consortium. These tasks include the baseline study for Monitoring & Evaluation purposes, the development of the APOLLON methodology framework for cross border Living Lab networks and the state of the art analysis of already existing structures, tools or methodologies associated with Living Lab collaboration and networking. This not only ensures a common approach and understanding across different tasks and work packages but mainly guarantees consistent findings that can be integrated into the bigger picture which ultimately manifests with the validated and tested APOLLON methodology framework at the end of the project. The categorization along the lifecycle of cross border Living Lab networks is therefore also reflected in the questionnaire that has been designed for semi-structured interviews within and outside of the APOLLON consortium (see annex A). Parts of the questions have not been strictly applied but served as guidelines for an open discussion with the interviewee. As the interviewees have been chosen according to their proven record of experience and expertise within the European Living Lab community and network, several inputs have been captured that not directly corresponds with one of the questions but go beyond the initially requested information. One of
28   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 the main targets of the interviews was to capture qualitative data on existing Living Lab networking initiatives in order to derive a rating of how successful methodologies, tools or organizational structures have been applied in real life. The outcomes of the interviews served as input for a collection of available methodologies, tools and structures including a SWOT analysis that also reflects expressed lessons learned. The applied common validation and consolidation of interview outcomes have been kept very simple by intention and comprises the following information: • • • • • • • Main category and sub-category according to the categorization of the APOLLON methodology framework The concept category distinguishing between methodologies, organizational/governance structures and tools The origin of the finding naming the project’s or initiative’s name and its concept A verbal description summarizing the main facts about the finding A SWOT analysis listing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the findings Available references for further details An indication of the relevance of the findings for the APOLLON methodology framework

The following initiatives have been considered for the SOTA analysis and represent a set of Living Lab initiatives that contain a cross border networking or LL collaboration aspect. These initiatives have been investigated through the accessible extended partner network of the APOLLON consortium and are considered to sufficiently reflect the current SOTA and lessons learned with regards to networking structures, methodologies and tools.   Living  Lab   initiative   C@R   (Collaboration  at   Rural)   Ecospace   Contacted/interviewed   Sources  of  information   person   Hans  Schaffers  (Aalto   University),  Christian   Merz  (SAP  AG)   Hans  Schaffers  (aalto   University),  Victor   Kaufmann  (SAP  AG)   Recorded  interview  at  11th  of   February  2010,  C@R  deliverables   Recorded  interviews  at  11th  and   12th  of  February  2010,  Ecospace   deliverables  

Laboranova  

Roxana  Belecheanu  (SAP   Recorded  interview  at  29th  of   AG)   January  2010,  Laboranova   deliverables   Roberto  Santoro   Transcripted  Skype  interview  at   9th  of  February  2010,  COLLABS   deliverables  

COLLABS  

29  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Finlab   Janne  Orava   Recorded  interview  at  9th  of   February,  2010,  Finlab  and   Finnish  network  of  Living  Lab   study  results   Report  on    ENoLL  Nordic  project   deliverables  January  2010   Transcripted  interview  on  5th   February,  2010,  Open  Lite  results   Transcripted  interview  on  26th   February,  2010,  OLLSE   Transcripted  interview  on  26th   February,  2010,  CoreLabs   Transcripeted  interviews  on19th   February,  2010,  PanLabII  

ENoLL  Nordic   OpenLite   Open  Living  Labs   SwEden  (OLLSE)   CoreLabs   PanLabII    

Petra  Turkama   Veli-­‐Pekka  Niitamo   Mikael  Börjeson   Mikael  Börjeson   Anastasios  Gavras  

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

7.1
 

Connect

    Connect  -­‐  Roles  &  Responsibilities  

  Concept  category   Origin   Methodology/Organizational  Structure   Collaboration   at   Rural   (C@R)   –   Vertical   Groups   and   matrix   management  

30  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Description   The   cyclic   development   iterations   have   been   supported   by   interdisciplinary   task-­‐forces,   called   vertical   groups.   These   task-­‐ forces   originally   were   set-­‐up   because   of   the   need   to   integrate   and   align   different   work   activities   within   C@R,   aligning   different   aspects   of   the   collaborative   platform,   the   core   services,   the   tools   and   applications,   and   user   experimentation.   They   have   been   composed   mainly   of   technical   experts   experienced   in   service   oriented   architecture   and   collaborative   working   environments   and   have   succeeded   in   exchanging   knowledge   and   methods   across   the   living   labs   groups   as   well.   Several   vertical   groups   have   been   established:   the   Spanish   Vertical   Group   (related   to   Soria   and   Cudillero   living   labs),   the   Sekhukhune-­‐Homokhati-­‐Åboland   Vertical   Group   and   the   Czech-­‐Italian   Vertical   Group.   These   vertical   groups  have  had  specific   objectives  related  to   supporting   the   technological   needs   of   the   living   labs,   and   specifically   for   developing   the   collaborative   applications.   Nevertheless,   all   vertical   groups   share   the   objective   of   defining   an   architectural   approach   to   create   advanced   collaborative   environments   based   on   the   composition   of   already   existing   basic   collaboration   services.   In   order   to   achieve   this   aim,   each   vertical   group   has   been   centered   in   different   approaches   and   architecture   implementation   parts,   so   they   are   collaborating   to   achieve   the   architecture  related  goal.  As  an  example,  the  Spanish  vertical  group   has  defined  a  framework  to  instantiate  software  collaboration  tools   specified   in   BPEL   and   managed   the   processes   related   to   the   orchestration   and   choreography   of   the   basic   collaboration   services   that   compose   an   specific   software   collaboration   tool.   The   Sekhukhune-­‐Homokhati-­‐Aboland   vertical   group   has   defined   an   approach   for   high-­‐level   modeling   of   software   collaboration   tools   using   Business   Process   Models   Graphical   notations   that   would   be   able  to  be  translated  as  BPEL  scripts.  All  vertical  groups  exchanged   regularly.   Strengths  
• •

SWOT  

Weaknesses  
Have   not   been   applied   successfully   to   all   participating   Living  Labs  

Applied   in   real   life   over   a   period   • of  6  cycles  (3  monthly)   Authentic   outcomes   in   terms   of   co-­‐innovation   across   2   or   more   Living  Labs   A   generalized   concept   of   vertical   • grouping  could  merge  into  a  skills   &  capacity  database  accessible  to   a  wider  community  of  Living  Labs    

Opportunities  

Threats  
 

31  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1   References     C@R   Deliverable   D.3.1.2:   Synergies   Management   and   Integrated   LL   Requirements,   Deployment   and   Development   Report,   C@R   consortium   In   order   to   achieve   open   innovation   an   effective   and   efficient   methodology   for   identifying   capable   and   skilled   resources   is   of   utmost   importance.   In   particular   a   multidisciplinary   approach   requiring  coordinated  efforts  is  of  benefit  to  the  quality  and  quantity   of   results.   A   generalized   framework   of   the   vertical   grouping   concept   could   lead   to   a   skills   &   capacity   database   that   helps   to   access   knowledge   in   a   network   of   Living   Labs   to   the   benefit   of   individual   Living  Labs.  

APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance    

    Connect  -­‐  Objectives  and  Goals  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Methodology   Co-­‐creating  Living  Labs,  CoreLabs,  Living  Lab  Roadmap  2007-­‐2010   In   order   to   define   a   shared   reference   towards   a   harmonization   of   methods  and  tools  for  use  in  a  European  Network  of  Living  Labs  an   interoperability   cube   for   harmonizing   Living   Labs   has   been   developed   (Mulder,   Fahy,   Hribernik,   Velthausz,   Feuerstein,   et   al.,   2007).   The   interoperability   cube   (Error!   Reference   source   not   found.)   builds   on   the   assumption   that   the   focus   on   synergies   and   those   elements   that   Living   Labs   want   to   exchange   with   each   other   forms   an   appropriate   basis   for   the   harmonization   of   methods   and   tools.  The  cube  identifies  these  exchange  possibilities  and  explicitly   defines  interoperability  elements  from  organizational,  technical  and   contextual  perspectives  in  which  different  standards  are  relevant.   The   interoperability   cube   consist   of   six   sides:   User   involvement,   Service   Creation,   Infrastructure,   Governance,   Innovation   outcome,   Methods   and   tools.   The   aim   is   that   the   sides   of   the   cube   should   be   used   to   support   the   process   of   harmonising   methods   and   tools  

32  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

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

Developed  in  correlation  with  the   • establishment  of  Enoll   Easy   to   understand   and   follow   for   different  Living  Labs   • Gives   a   common   frame   of   reference   which   functions   as   a   • basis  for  discussion     Each   category   could   be   defined   • and  developed  further  to  support   the   process   of   setting   up   networks   and   to   reach   a   common   objective    

Opportunities  

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

  References   CoreLabs  –  Living  Labs  Roadmap  2007-­‐2010,  Recommendations  on   Systems   for   Open   User   driven   Research,   Development   and   Innovation   In   order   to   achieve   open   innovation   an   effective   and   efficient   methodology   for   identifying   capable   and   skilled   resources   is   of   utmost   importance.   In   particular   a   multidisciplinary   approach   requiring  coordinated  efforts  is  of  benefit  to  the  quality  and  quantity   of   results.   A   generalized   framework   of   the   vertical   grouping   concept   could   lead   to   a   skills   &   capacity   database   that   helps   to   access   knowledge   in   a   network   of   Living   Labs   to   the   benefit   of   individual   Living  Labs.  

APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance    

      Connect  –  Roles  and  responsibilities  

  Concept  category   Methodology/organizational  structure/governance  

33  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Origin   Description   COLLABS,  Deliverable  2.2   Identification  of  living  labs  under  various  thematic  domains  in  order   to  share  pilot  ideas  and  platforms  for  new  projects  and  experiments.   The   project   did   a   review   of   existing   European   Living   Labs   under   various   thematic   domains   and   shared   this   through   project   dissemination   activities.   Thematic   grouping   of   the   networks   and   living  labs  increased  the  awareness  of  the  living  labs’  specific  focus   and  strengths  within  the  living  lab  community.  This  enables  effective   sharing  of  knowledge  and  best  practices  with  expert  groups,  as  well   as  finding  partners  for  future  projects  and  cross-­‐border  initiatives.       Thematic  clustering  represents  the  latest  development  in  the  living   lab  maturity  process,  where  individual  actors  move  from  stand  alone   operations   to   regional   networks   and   further   to   cross-­‐border   thematic  networks  with  increased  industry  relevance  and  value  add   for  participating  SMEs.   SWOT   Strengths   • • Weaknesses   Not   a   comprehensive   list   of   living  labs   maintaining   and   updating   the   list   after   the   project   is   not   clear   Potentially   different   from   ENoLL  thematic  partners     Few   living   labs   are   strictly   specialized   in   only   one   domain.   Listing   may   create   profiles  that  do  not  reflect  the   whole  picture.  

Open   for   also   none   ENoLL   • members     First   large   scale   attempt   to   • group   living   labs   by   specialization   Enabling   identification   of   • learning   networks   and   interest   groups   to   support   • newly   established   thematic   LL  networks   Background   document   fro   ENoLL   decising   on   thematic   networks  

Opportunities   •

Threats  

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance     Deliverable  D2.2  Technical  report  for  WP2  (by  Schaffers)   Added   value   for   thematic   networks.   Potential   partners   for   future   projects,  dissemination  or  supporting  partners.  Thematic  roadmaps   as  an  idea  something  worth  exploring  also  in  Apollon  project.  

34  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1       Connect  –  Objectives  and  Goals/Subnetworks  and  supporting  parties  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Tools   ENoLL  Nordic  LL  toolbox   The  concrete  outcome  of  ENoLL  Nordic  project  was  a  virtual  toolbox   for   Living   Lab   research.   The   online   resource   (www.lltoolbox.eu)   includes  advice  and  practical  tools  for  companies  and  other  actors  to   get   involved   and   started   with   Living   Lab   research.   The   pages   also   include  references  to  further  literature  on  the  subjects.  The  toolbox   is  interactive,  and  thus  open  for  contributions.   Living  Lab  toolbox  is  a  handbook  and  resource  library  for  any  actors   interested   in   living   lab   research   and   practice.   It   summarizes   methods  and  tools  commonly  used  in  user  research,  open  innovation   and   living   labs.   The   various   methods   have   been   grouped   following   innovation  cycle  and  phases  and  thus  easily  accessible.     The   toolbox   was   collected   during   ENoLL   Nordic   project,   which   operated   as   event   based   promotion   and   sharing   initiative,   investigating   the   opportunities   and   added   value   of   Nordic   collaboration   for   living   labs.   Toolbox   is   maintained   by   Luleå   Technical  University.   SWOT   Strengths   • • • Weaknesses   Usage   and   user   feedback   on   the   pages   not   systematically   documented   Not   specifically   targeted   for   living   lab   networks,   but   rather   project   based   work   in   individual  living  lab   Similar   resources   exist   based   on  other  projects  as  well.     Implementation   of   the  
Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

Opportunities   •

Threats  

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

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1   • Dissemination   and   awareness   building   for   living   lab  work   New   potential   living   alb   clients  through  the  pages   practices   is   not   discussed.   Professional   use   of   the   mentioned   methods   requires   support.  

• References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

www.lltoolbox.eu   Added  value  for  SMEs  as  a  practical  guide.  Reference  point  for  more   detailed   information   on   specific   methods,   and   thus   providing   an   additional  layer  for  APOLLON  methodology.   Since   Apollon   project   concentrates   on   living   lab   network   level,   but   there   are   also   needs   in   individual   living   labs   and   experiments   for   additional   and   specific   consulting,   the   toolbox   can   act   as   a   general   reference  resource  for  the  experiments.  

7.2
 

Set boundaries and engage

    Set  Boundaries  and  Engage  –  Networking  business  model  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Model/methodology   COLLABS,  Deliverable  2.2   A  conceptual  framework  of  living  lab  business  models.   A  living  lab  business  model  defines  the  assets  (resources),  activities   and   collaboration   through   which   a   living   lab   offers   products   or   services   to   its   stakeholders,   and   eventually   creates   value   for   them.   Thus,  the  business  model  describes  a  “value  proposition”:  the  value   created   for   its   stakeholders   by   the   product   or   service   offering.   Moreover,   the   living   lab   business   model   in   its   rural   or   regional   environment   defines   the   position   and   functioning   of   the   living   lab   as   part  of  the  rural  innovation  system  and  innovation  policy.     COLLABS   defined   the   elements   of   Living   Lab   business   models   and   distinguishes   living   lab   business   models   on   basis   of   following   dimensions:   1.  Funding  and  revenue  generation  
36   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 2.  Service  offering  and  value  proposition   3.  Business  process  and  organization.     Furthermore,   the   projects   have   been   divided   by   driver   into   project   based,  consortium  based  and  facility  based  living  labs  with  different   business  models.   SWOT   Strengths   • Weaknesses   Have   not   been   applied   successfully   to   all   Living   Labs,   more   research   needed   to   develop   and   proof   the   concept   Various   objectives   in   Living   Labs   –not   all   aim   for   economic   value   maximization,  and  thus  linear   revenue   creation   model   may   not  apply.   Models   become   very   generic   and  thus  do  not  add  value    

Builds  on  extensive  review  of   • leading   European   Living   Lab   practices    

Opportunities   •

Threats  

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance    

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

Deliverable  D2.2  Technical  report  for  WP2  (by  Schaffers)   Conceptual  framework  can  be  used  as  a  reference  when  identifying   and  classifying  various  types  of  Apollon  experiments  and  networks,   and   planning   the   potential   business   models   based   on   this   initial   categorization.  Furthermore,  COLLABS  project  identified  Living  Lab   business   models   as   a   critical   and   yet   under   investigated   area   of   research.  APOLLON  WP1  can  contribute  to  filling  this  identified  gap   in   Living   Lab   research,   and   thus   make   a   significant   contribution   to   Living  Lab  community.    

      Set  Boundaries  and  Engage  -­‐  Living  Lab  Policy  Framework  

 

37  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Concept  category   Origin   Description   Governance   COLLABS,  Deliverable  4.2   Identification   of   the   potential   avenues   for   Living   Labs   to   influence   national  and  regional  policy  making.  Identified  policy  challenges.     Many  regions,  provinces  and  cities  across  Europe  have  implemented   policies   and   instruments   to   stimulate   innovation   and   socio-­‐ economic   development,   for   example   through   fostering   clusters   and   through  intensifying  innovation  support.  It  is  now  widely  recognized   that   it   is   no   longer   sufficient   to   focus   on   technology   innovation   as   innovation   is   increasingly   shifting   towards   market   and   society   pull   models.     Responding   to   and   even   giving   shape   to   this   transformation,   the   Living   Labs   concept   aims   to   balance   the   forces   of   technology   push   and   market   pull   by   contributing   to   the   formation   of   sustainable   innovation   ecosystems   where   regional   stakeholders,   citizens   and   companies  including  SMEs  are  engaged  and  collaborating  in  an  early   stage  for  user-­‐driven  and  open  innovation.   Living  Labs  could  constitute  such  an  interactive  policy  intervention   as   they   constitute   an   open   innovation   instrument   which   brings   in   the  users  in  an  early  stage.  However  to  qualify  as  interactive  policy   intervention,   living   labs   should   constitute   a   learning   environment   for  both  living  labs  stakeholders  and  policy  makers.   SWOT   Strengths   • Weaknesses   Work  is  still  ongoing  and  few   concrete   examples   of   implementation  exist   Division   of   various   policy   levels  yet  not  clear.    Living   labs   definition   must   be   clarified   in   order   to   avoid   misunderstandings   and   wrong  expectations.     In   this   context   living   labs   considered   learning   environments,   thus   the   definition   could   be   much   broader  

Builds  on  extensive  review  of   • leading   European   Living   Lab   practices     Focus   on   SME   potential   in   • regional  level   Building   on   existing   • knowledge   policy   implications   can   be   accelerated   •

Opportunities   •

Threats  

 

38  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance           Set  Boundaries  and  Engage  –  Technological  solutions   Deliverable  D4.2  Technical  report  for  WP4  (by  Schaffers)   Relevant  especially  for  WP1  task  1.5:  Future  recommendations  and   roadmap.   Important   lessons   learned   collected   from   earlier   initiatives   in   single   living   lab   level.   Presented   policy   recommendations   still   hold   valid,   and   could   be   incorporated   in   Apollon  work.  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Model     CoreLabs  –Deliverable  2.3  -­‐  Living  Labs  Roadmap  2001-­‐2010   The   living   labs   foster   the   formation   of   online   communities   and   provide   existing   rural   communities   with   technical   support.   For   geographical   and   demographical   reasons   the   Internet   penetration   in   rural   areas   is   far   from   that   in   larger   cities.   It   seems   that   current   business   models   and   technologies   cannot   achieve   breakthrough   in   this  area.  Therefore  we  need  new  business  models  which  are  closer   to  real  life  situations  in  rural  areas,  villages.  For  example,  in  a  small   community  people  know  each  other  and  they  try  to  solve  any  arising   problems  in  much  closer  cooperation  than  in  larger  towns  and  cities.   From   the   aspect   of   technology   and   business   models   the   Wireless   Mesh   Network   solution   fits   perfectly   into   this   picture.   Utilizing   this   solution   a   community   can   achieve   wireless   network   coverage   for   a   small   town   or   village.   The   network   infrastructure   is   managed   by   volunteer   citizens.   As   the   whole   system   is   self-­‐healing   and   self-­‐ tuning,   the   system   can   be   expanded   in   a   plug   and   play   manner   without   special   knowledge.   With   this   solution   the   whole   community   will   have   network   access   and   will   be   able   to   communicate   with   each   other   through   this   data   network.   The   Internet   access   can   be   provided   by   volunteers   sharing   their   already   existing   wired   connections.  As  a  free  source  for  the  community,  the  mayor’s  office   may  provide  the  whole  village/town  with  several  broadband  wired   gateways.   The   WMN   can   be   used   to   extend   the   range   and   the  

39  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 services  of  an  already  existing  WiFi  based  ISP  (W-­‐ISP)  or  ISP’s.   SWOT   Strengths   • Weaknesses   Have   not   been   applied   successfully   to   all   Living   Labs,   more   research   needed   to   develop   and   proof   the   concept   Suitable   methods   and   tools   currently  change  and  develop   Growth   of   social   networking   technology      

Builds  on  extensive  review  of   • leading   European   Living   Lab   practices    

• Opportunities   •   References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance            

Threats  

The   growth   of   social   media   • interaction  

CoreLabs  –Deliverable  2.3  -­‐  Living  Labs  Roadmap  2001-­‐2010   Applying   supportive   technical   infrastructure   is   vital   for   business   model  success  in  networks  of  Living  Labs.  

Set  Boundaries  and  Engage  –  Living  Lab  business  model  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Governance/Models   CoreLabs  –Deliverable  2.3  -­‐  Living  Labs  Roadmap  2001-­‐2010   The   governance   structure   of   a   Living   Lab   describes   the   way   it   is   organised  and  managed  at  different  levels  such  as  the  operational  or   strategic   ones.   These   (organisational,   contextual   or   technological)   aspects   are   related   to   the   life   cycle   of   the   Living   Lab.   The   strategic   level   deals   with   issues   like:   the   way   Intellectual   Property   Rights   and  
40   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 exploitation   of   results   are   dealt   with;   the   way   stakeholders   are   involved   (financial   contributions,   commitment,   responsibility,   influence),   financing:   public-­‐private-­‐partnership,   commercial;   ownership  of  the  Living  Lab,  i.e.  its  services,  infrastructure,  and  the   responsible   entity   for   Living   Lab   (dedicated   organisation   or   consortium);   the   management   structure,   e.g.   director,   steering   board,   (technical)   program   committee,   user   committee;   driver   and   nature   of   the   Living   Lab,   e.g.   community-­‐driven,   research   driven,   business/industry   driven,   technology   driven,   open/closeness:   sharing   resources/network;   Living   Lab   development:   consortium   dynamics   (e.g.   additional   partners,   user   groups),   subsidy/funding   policy   and   the   definition   and   adjustment   of   the   agenda.   The   operational  level  includes  aspects  like:  working  practices  for  the  day   to   day   management;   execution   &   monitoring   of   the   living   lab   goals   regarding   the   synergy,   quality   and   progress   monitoring,   internal   communication;  the  way  new  software  and  services  are  introduced   and   validated,   responsibilities   and   liabilities;   the   definition   of   user   group/   awareness   of   being   part   of   Living   Lab;   dissemination   and   external   communication:   national   and   international   consolidation;   the  way  projects  are  organized  and  funded.   SWOT   Strengths   • Weaknesses   Have   not   been   applied   successfully   to   all   Living   Labs,   more   research   needed   to   develop   and   proof   the   concept  

Builds  on  extensive  review  of   • leading   European   Living   Lab   practices     Gives   directions   on   how   to   plan  governance  structures     The   operational   level   can   be   • developed   to   give   further   support    

Opportunities   •

Threats   Different   cultures   stakeholders   among  

References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

CoreLabs  –  Deliverable  2.3  -­‐  Living  Labs  Roadmap  2001-­‐2010   The   governance   of   the   network   is   important   and   this   gives   substantial  support  for  this  process.    

41  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1     Set  Boundaries  and  Engage  –  Technological  Solutions  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Tools   Laboranova  -­‐  Toolset   Laboranova   supports   innovators,   teams   and   companies   within   the   development   and   management   of   innovative   ideas   and   concepts.   The   methods   and   tools   guide   the   users   through   the   process   of   the   early-­‐stage  innovation  starting  with   • • • • team  building,   generation  and  management  of  back-­‐  and  foreground  knowledge,   idea  and  concept  generation  and  management   and     the   idea   or   concept   evaluation   and   selection.  

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

Project  Management   Visualization   Collaboration   Interactivity  

42  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

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

InnoJam:   InnoJam   is   a   discussion-­‐based   tool   that   can   bring   together   thousands   of   users   and   connect   them   in   an   asynchronous   way   to   empower  the  generation  and  evolution  of  ideas.   InnoJam   is   aimed   to   support   massive-­‐participation   events.   In   that   line,   a   higher   level   of   participation   from   the   users   provides   a   greater   value   from   the   system   features.   Even   though,   it   can   also   suit   the   needs  of  smaller  events,  with  a  lower  level  of  participation.   The  community  of  participants  has  an  important  value  as  it  is  given   the  power  to  vote  and  rank  ideas,  their  evolution  or  other  proposed   alternatives.   InnoTube:     Customers’   needs   are   often   not   openly   expressed.   However,  what  emerges  from  our  past  experience  is  a  clear  need  of   having  a  better  understanding  of  the  useful  information  needed  for   fostering   and   participating   in   the   Innovation   process.   InnoTube   offerst  the  following  features:  
• • • • • • • •

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

43  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 MashUp:  The  mashup  is  a  web–based  application  which  provides  a     common,   yet   personalized   entry   point   to   the   Laboranova   environment.  The  mashup  acts  also  as  an  integrated  front-­‐end  to  the   user   innovation   space   (ideas,   people,   and   related   information),   as   well  as  to  the  innovation  tools  developed  as  part  of  Laboranova.   Several  user  roles  are  catered  for  in  the  mashup  and  its  functionality   is  customised  to  these  roles.   For  innovators,  contributors  and  evaluators,  the  mashup  will  offer  a   space   for   visualizing   ideas   and   associated   information,   for   adding   comments  and  other  types  of  evaluations  such  as  ratings,  as  well  as   for   finding   expertise   and   connecting   to   the   relevant   people   at   the   right  time.   For   innovation   managers   and   team   or   project   leader,   the   mashup   will  provide  support  to  monitor  and  analyse  the  innovation  activity   and   contributions   of   their   team   members   (through   relevant   analytics),   as   well   as   for   moderating   communication   and   fostering   collaboration  in  order  to  make  innovation  more  efficient.     Melodie:   KartOO   created   Melodie   to   allow   the   collaborative   generation   of   ideas   over   the   internet.   All   ideas   are   shown   as   a   cartography  (map)  which  visualizes  the  results.  There  is  a  semantic   system  which  links  and  clusters  the  same  topics  between  the  ideas,   so  that  similar  ideas  are  shown  near  one  another.  Moreover,  people   can   improve   an   idea   by   entering   an   improvement   of   an   already   existing   idea.   All   ideas   are   shown   and   every   users   is   allowed   to   access  them  and  to  modify  ideas  until  they  are  finalized.   Profile   System:   The   Laboranova   Profile   System   is   designed   to   enhance   users’   ability   to   identify   people   who   would   be   useful   to   them   in   creating   innovations.   Profiling   tools   are   key   in   that   they   should  generate  virtual  crossroads  that  normally  mainly  happen  by   chance  in  our  professional  life  -­‐  such  as  meeting  someone  having  a   common   interest   with   a   complementary   expertise   during   a   conference  or  other  event  –  they  can  thus  provide  a  random  chance   of  meeting  a  collaboration  opportunity.   refQuest:   The   generation   of   ideas   to   solve   a   given   problem   in   an   innovation   area   is   one   of   the   main   tasks   in   the   fuzzy   front-­‐end   of   innovation.   refQuest   is   a   multi-­‐player   online   game   supporting   the   idea   generation   by   disruptiveness   and   structuring   of   the   ideation   process   by   applying   creativity   techniques.   It   allows   Virtual   Teams   to   cooperate  in  ideation  over  distance.  

44  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Rich   Knowledge   Meetings:   Many   times   synchronous   communication,  i.e.,  in  real  time,  is  preferred  to  asynchronous.  Rapid   response   to   ideas   will   result   in   an   efficient   dialog   to   creativity   and   lower   the   risk   for   misunderstanding   In   asynchronous   communication   like   email,   discussion   boards,   the   time   delay   to   a   response  may  damper  a  discussion.   Rich   Knowledge   Meeting   tool   makes   it   easy   to   have   rich   meetings   even   if   you   are   geographical   apart.   You   talk   to   each   other,   you   can   see  each  other,  you  can  share  documents,  and  co-­‐operate  using  the   other   Laboranova   tools.   And   since   you   are   using   your   normal   computer   you   will   have   full   access   to   your   email,   calendar,   and   all   your  files.   The  Wrap:  The  Wrap  is  a  file  folder  system  and  a  Work  Breakdown   Structure  (WBS)  combined  in  one  manipulable  visual  structure.   The  structure  is  made  up  of  ‘folders’  (circles)  in  which  content  such   as   files,   links   and   work   tasks   are   placed   as   hyperlinks.   The   circles   however   double   as   ‘containers’   for   both   content   and   other   circles   allowing   the   circles   to   form   a   WBS,   i.e.   a   hierarchy   of   sub-­‐   and   superproject  levels.   Xpertum:   Xpertum   is   an   interactive   web-­‐based   tool   for   visualizing   social   networks,   in   terms   of   competences   and   people,   which   uses   basically   force-­‐directed   and   clustering   algorithms   (work   in   progress).   SWOT   Strengths   • Weaknesses   Have   mainly   been   applied   in   individual   corporate   environments   within   Laboranova    

Tool   validation   has   been   • executed   with   promising   results   Comprehensive   toolset   for   early  stage  innovation     Piloting  of  such  tools  within  a   • vertical   network   of   cross   border  Living  Labs    

Opportunities   •

Threats   No  threats  

References   APOLLON   methodology  

Laboranova  –  Toolset,  deliverable  7.5.2  -­‐  Innovation  Management  at   Companies  –  Tool  Validation   Early   stage   innovation   tool   support   not   only   applies   to   distinctive,   single   Living   Labs   but   also   to   networks   of   Living   Labs.   In   principle   there   is   no   difference   in   handling   these   tools   as   early   stage  
45   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 framework   relevance       innovation   doesn’t   differentiate   whether   collaborating   partners   are   acting  within  a  single  Living  Lab  or  within  a  network  of  Living  Labs.   Therefore   it   is   expected   that   the   findings   of   Laboranova   can   be   applied  in  APOLLON  as  well.    

7.3
 

Support and Govern

    Support  and  Govern  –  Co-­‐Innovation  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Methodology   COLLABS  D3.2  Living  Lab  methodology  assessment   Description  of  a  few  important  elements  of  living  labs  methodologies   that   have   been   explored   and   validated   in   Integrated   Projects   C@R   (www.c-­‐rural.eu)   and   ECOSPACE   (www.ip-­‐ecospace.org).   These   methodologies   for   setting   up   and   running   individual   living   labs   distinguish  between  generic  and  specific  methodologies  to  run  living   lab   innovation   projects.   The   principles   can   be   partly   applied   for   Networks  of  Living  Labs.   Strengths   • Weaknesses   May   not   be   detailed   enough   to  add  value  in  actual  cases.     Among   the   most   • comprehensive   investigation   into   Living   Lab   methodologies  

SWOT  

  Opportunities   • Threats   Network   management   is   more   complicated   than   operations  in  single  living  lab  

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

  References   COLLABS  Deliverable  3.2  Technical  report  

46  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance           Support  and  Govern  –  User  Interaction   Establishes  a  good  overview  of  current  state  of  affairs  with  regards   to   Living   Lab   and   Living   Lab   network   methodologies.   Can   help   identify   gaps   in   the   existing   knowledge   in   the   field   and   thus   direct   APOLLON  WP1  work.  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Methodology   CoreLabs  –  Deliverable  2.3  Roadmap  2007-­‐2010   User  involvement  is  one  of  the  key  elements  of  a  Living  Lab,  and  as   such  should  be  a  focal  point  of  mature  Living  Labs.  In  creating  usable   systems   it   is   generally   accepted   that   they   should   be   designed   according   to   an   iterative   approach,   and   that   user   involvement   is   crucial,  see  e.g.,  Mulder  (2004).  The  focus  is  on  finding  out  what  the   relevant   experiences,   methods,   tools   that   Living   Labs   benefit   from   are.  Users  are  important  to  define  context-­‐aware  services,  think  for   example   of   cultural   differences.   Organisational   issues   include   questions   like   How   to   organize   user   involvement?   How   to   find   the   right   users?   What   about   the   validity?   How   to   motivate   the   users?   From  a  technological  point  of  view:    How  to  get  access  to  large  user   groups?   How   to   analyse   large   amounts   of   data?   In   order   to   enable   scalability,   the   use   of   grid   technology   can   be   seen   as   a   possible   solution,  as  the  volume  of  data  generated  within  the  Living  Lab  could   become   extremely   large.   Analysing   social   context   data,   application   usage   data   and   user   experience   data   collected   in   real-­‐life   settings   presents   new   challenges   -­‐   it’s   not   clear   a   priori   which   data   is   relevant.   Therefore,   new   analysis   and   reporting   modules   might   be   needed   along   with   scalable,   flexible   storage   and   computing   resources  to  cope  with  large  amount.   Strengths   • Weaknesses   The   merits   of   user   involvement   has   not   been  
Final version, 21/05/2010  

SWOT  

Builds   on   a   comprehensive   • study  of  existing  Living  Labs  
47  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1     Opportunities   • Contious   need   to   be   updated   • due   to   changes   in   use   of   technology   scientifically   validated   numerous  studies   in  

Threats   It  is  difficult  to  identify  users   of  innovations  

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance             Support  and  Govern  –  Co-­‐Innovation   CoreLabs  –  Deliverable  2.3  Roadmap  2007-­‐2010   Gives   a   sound   basis   for   user   involvement   activities   and   identifies   relevant  questions  to  be  answered.    

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Methodology/  Tools   CoreLabs  –  Deliverable  2.3  Roadmap  2007-­‐2010   The  CoreLabs  project  has  investigated  methods  and  tools  for  Living   Labs  and  established  a  respective  taxonomy.  The  current  Living  Labs   are   using   a   diversity   of   technologies,   infrastructures   and   applications   and   some   host   specialist   technology   providers   and   research   institutes.   Best   Practices   have   been   analyzed   in   order   to   ensure   interoperability   by   either   defining   the   use   of   de-­‐facto   standards   or   suggesting   extensions   to   existing   ones   where   applicable.  The  methods  &  tools  category  within  the  interoperability   cube  describes  different  methods  and  tools  used  within  the  existing   European  Living  Lab  at  all  stages.   Integration  of  the  project  in  the  Living  Lab  infrastructure.  A  full  Living  
48   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 Lab   service   offering   not   only   requires   product   and   service   development   and   evaluation   methodologies   but   also   a   mechanism   for   the   integration   of   the   customers’   product   or   service   into   a   Living   Lab  to  provide  it  to  the  users.  The  efficient,  transparent  and  smooth   integration   accomplished   by   the   Living   Lab   provider   is   the   key   for   trust   and   convenience   of   the   customer.   It   also   can   work   as   a   first   product/service   testing   depending   on   the   level   of   development   (market  launch  testing).   Co-­creation.  The  core  service  of  the  Living  Lab  is  to  facilitate  the  co-­‐ creation   of   a   product,   service   or   application   development.   This   co-­‐ creative  product  development  process  can  be  decomposed  into  four   phases:   Product   Idea,   Product   Concept,   Product   Development,   and   Market   Launch.   The   methods   are   divided   into   traditional   market   research   methods   and   internet   based   methods   allocated   to   the   process  phase  they  are  most  appropriate.     Data  preparation.  To  fulfil  the  customers’  expectations  regarding  the   results  and  to  reduce  the  complexity  of  the  evaluated  data,  the  Living   Lab   provider   offers   a   standardised   data   preparation.   The   great   advantage   of   the   standardisation   is   the   comparability   with   the   results  within  other  Living  Labs  in  the  network  and  the  confirmation   of  the  expected  output  in  the  run-­‐up  to  the  usage  of  the  Living  Labs.   SWOT   Strengths   •   Weaknesses   Does   not   give   any   guidance   on  which  methods  to  use     Does   not   describe   methods   and  tools  to  be  applied  

Builds   on   a   comprehensive   • study  of  existing  Living  Labs   •  

Opportunities   •

Threats   Methods  needs  to  be  adjusted   according   to   situational   aspects  

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

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance     CoreLabs  –  Deliverable  2.3  Roadmap  2007-­‐2010   Gives  a  sound  basis  for  how  to  think  about  methods  and  tools  during   Living  Labs  activities  and  interactions.  

49  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1       Support  and  govern  -­‐  Co-­‐Innovation,  Solution  Development  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description  
Methodology  

Collaboration  at  Rural  (C@R)  –  Cyclic  development   Cornerstone   of   the   C@R   living   lab   methodology   is   continuous   development,   prototyping,   user   experimentation   and   evaluation   of   innovative   collaboration   systems   and   new   ways   of   collaborative   working.   The   aim   in   C@R   was   to   link   and   integrate   innovative   technical   work   and   user-­‐driven   innovation   process,   embedded   in   local  innovation  and  rural  development  contexts.  The  approach  was   two-­‐level:   (1)   organising   the   development   and   experimentation   of   software   systems   in   cycles   (mostly   three-­‐monthly),   and   (2)   within   these   cycles   applying   an   action   research   approach   at   the   „micro-­‐ level“   of   interactions   between   designers,   users,   researchers   and   other  stakeholders.  From  the  early  beginning  and  grounded  in  local   community  building  C@R  built  up  a  series  of  experimentations  and   evaluations,   monitored   over   time   and   organised   in   three-­‐monthly   cycles.  This  approach  has  worked  remarkably  well  in  organising  the   living   lab   project   teams   and   in   achieving   concrete   results   and   also   provided   a   good   basis   for   end-­‐user   driven   software   development   processes.  It  has  been  applied  across  all  involved  living  labs  in  C@R   and   therefore   provided   a   guiding   frame   in   terms   of   organizing   and   reporting  progress  on  solution  development.   Establishing   an   environment   of   user-­‐led   co-­‐creation   currently   cannot   go   that   far   as   to   let   users   develop   specific   architecture   components.  These  components  even  should  be  hidden  for  the  users.   However,   C@R   aimed   to   maximize   user   engagement   on   all   levels.   Therefore   the   “artefacts”   must   be   identified   that   possibly   can   be   influenced   and   shaped   by   the   users,   on   basis   of   a   process   of   interaction,   exchange   and   dialogue   between   developers   and   users,   and   also   researchers   and   other   stakeholders.   Such   artifacts   include   simple   scenarios   for   work   and   business   enhancements,   evaluations   and   ideas   for   improvements   of   current   collaboration   processes,   elements   of   collaborative   workplace   reference   architecture,   initial   application  designs  and  mock  ups,  and  more  developed  prototypes.  
50   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 A  next  element  of  end-­‐user  shaping  and  appropriation  is  in  actually   using   and   experimenting   with   the   application   prototypes   in   near-­‐ real   or   real-­‐life   settings,   providing   explicit   or   implicit   feedback   and   guidelines.     Therefore,  an  important  challenge  in  designing  living  lab  projects  is   to  create  the  conditions  and  frameworks  for  such  „action  research“   interactions,  e.g.  by  establishing  a  local  user–stakeholder  community   and   arranging   agreements   among   all   actors   to   participate   to   the   process,   and   given   such   frameworks   to   arrange   and   manage   the   concrete   innovation   project   as   a   process   of   user-­‐influenced   experimentation   and   evaluation   covering   the   complex,   cyclic   and   interacting   processes   of   conceptualizing,   designing,   developing,   testing,  using  and  validating  the  innovations.   SWOT  
Strengths   • • Weaknesses   No  weaknesses  

Enforcement   to   think   in   terms   • of  cyclic  progression     Alignment   and   close   synchronization   of   cyclic   development   activities   across   collaborative  living  labs   Cyclic   development   could   be   • applied  more  extensively  across   living   labs,   in   particular   for   joint   development  activities    

Opportunities   •

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

References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

C@R  deliverable  D3.1.1  -­‐  Common  methodology  framework   Co-­‐innovation,   when   applied   across   living   labs   become   tricky   in   terms   of   organization   and   execution.   Appropriate   planning   and   monitoring  of  solution  development  activities  is  key  for  the  success   of   new   products   and   services,   in   particular   when   development   resources   are   spread   across   organizations   in   different   living   labs.   Therefore   the   cyclic   development   methodology   constitutes   an   important  aspect  for  cross  border  LL  networks.    

51  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1     Support  and  govern  -­‐  Co-­‐Innovation,  Solution  Development  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description  
Governance  

Collaboration  at  Rural  (C@R)  –  Reference  architecture   A   platform   for   advanced   Collaborative   Working   Environments   (CWEs)   has   been   designed   that   follows   the   principles   of   an   Open   Service   Oriented   Architecture   (OSOA).   The   multilayer   architecture   design   realizes   decoupled   building   blocks   to   deal   with   different   aggregation   levels   of   business   functionality,   namely   Collaborative   Core   Services,   Software   Collaboration   Tools,   Orchestration   Capabilities   and   Living   Lab   Applications.   Additional   to   these   layers   a   Control   BUS   has   been   conceptualized   and   implemented   in   order   to   centrally   deal   with   component   registration   and   brokerage   enabling   component  reusability  across  Living  Lab  borders.    The  architecture   design   provides   a   reference   framework   for   the   individual   Rural   Living  Lab  flavored  implementations  that  reflect  local  specifics  of  the   overall   concept   as   a   result   of   the   contextual   “engineering   target   point”.       Such   a   platform   on   the   one   hand   need   to   be   dedicated   enough   to   accommodate  commonalities  within  a  range  of  rural  Living  Labs  and   flexible  enough  to  serve  individual  needs  of  certain  sectors,  cultural   backgrounds,   ICT   infrastructures   etc.   During   the   lifetime   of   the   project   it   became   evident   that   a   reference   architecture   for   rural   CWEs   has   certain   limitations   in   terms   of   reusable   concepts   due   to   the   variety   of   use   cases   and   professions   being   present   in   remote   areas.   Nevertheless   C@R   found   out   overlaps   between   architectural   needs  if  not  between  all  Living  Labs  at  least  between  some  of  them.   These   overlaps   drove   the   architectural   design   and   the   flavored   implementations   of   according   platforms   operated   in   the   individual   Living  Labs.    
Strengths   • Weaknesses   Common   component   reuse   only   applied   occasionally,   no   broad   adoption   Common   architectural   • principles   and   elements   applicable  to  a  wide  range  of  LL  

SWOT  

52  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1
• • • solutions   • Reusable   concepts   and   components     Open  standards  and  interfaces   Reference   architecture   • approach  applicable  to  many  LL   except  the  ones  in  C@R   Reference   architecture   could   be   enhanced   to   reflect   a   guiding   architecture   framework   for   different   sectors   of   LLs   (which   was   the   original   idea   of   OCA   Working  Group)     Some   LL   haven’t   applied   some   of  the  major  concepts  at  all  

Opportunities  

Threats   Non   compliancy   to   reference   architecture   result   in   missed   synergies  between  LLs  

References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

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

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

  Concept  category   Origin   Description  
Governance  

Ecospace  –  CWE  Reference  Architecture   The  CWE  Reference  Architecture  describes  the  main  building  blocks,   system   components   and   artifacts   with   their   interrelationships   as   a   template   solution   to   be   reused   while   building   architectures   and   designing  systems  for  CWE.  Being  a  “reference”  architecture  means   being  as  technology-­‐independent  as  possible.     The   ECOSPACE   project   endorses   this   architecture   and   implements   tools   and   prototypes   that   validate   the   proposed   reference  

53  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 architecture   by   demonstrating   at   the   same   time   a   possible   implementation   direction   exploiting   state-­‐of-­‐the-­‐art   technologies   like  SOA,  Semantic  Web  and  Widgets.     A   layered   approach   has   been   followed   to   present   the   architecture.   This   approach   defines   seven   layers   which   can   be   presented   in   two   groups:  horizontal  and  vertical.     Horizontal     • Basic  Service  layer:  Here  the  Basic  Collaborative  Services  (BCSs)   can   be   found.   A   BCS   represents   a   simple   collaborative   task   that   can  not  be  divided  into  smaller  parts,  e.g.  create  a  blog,  send  an  e-­‐ mail,   or   upload   a   document.   This   is   a   fundamental   layer   as   it   provides  the  building  blocks  for  constructing  the  other  layers.  It   is  populated  by  ideally  all  available  BCSs  in  the  CWE  domain.     Orchestration   layer:   This   layer   is   populated   by   Composite   Collaborative   Services   (CoCoS).   These   services   are   defined   as   sets   of   BCSs   combined   in   a   defined   order   to   provide   value-­‐added   collaborative  functionality  to  the  user.  E.g.  upload  document  and   notify   all   users,   inform   users   about   an   appointment.   ECOSPACE   has  already  identified  and  documented  a  number  of  BCSs     Collaborative   Application   Layer:   Here   we   find   the   software   applications  that  employ  the  capabilities  of  basic  services  and/or   orchestrated  services  that  the  user  wishes  to  use,  e.g.  BSCW,  BC.     Desktop   Layer:   This   represents   the   user   interface   or   front-­‐end   which   is   used   by   eProfessionals   to   interact   with   one   or   more   CWE   applications.   This   interface   is   decoupled   from   the   other   layers.    

Vertical     • Semantic   Infrastructure   Layer:   This   layer   stores   models,   metadata  and  rules  to  be  used  by  all  the  other  layers  in  order  to   provide   “intelligence”,   contextualization   and   personalization   of   CWE  functionalities  and  services.     Registry/Repository   Layer:   This   layer   stores   information   on   where  the  several  components  and  information  associated  to  the   artifacts  that  populate  the  other  layers  can  be  found.     QoS   Layer:   This   layer   provides   the   capabilities   required   to   monitor,   manage,   and   maintain   QoS   such   as   security,   error   handling,  transaction  management,  scalability  and  reliability.  
Weaknesses  

•   SWOT  

Strengths  

54  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1
• Common   architectural   • principles   and   elements     applicable  to  a  wide  range  of  LL   solutions   Reusable   concepts   and   components   Open  standards  and  interfaces   Reference   architecture   • approach  applicable  to  many  LL   except  the  ones  in  Ecospace   Reference   architecture   could   be   enhanced   to   reflect   a   guiding   architecture   framework   for   different   sectors   of   LLs   (which   was   the   original   idea   of   OCA   Working  Group)     No  weaknesses  

• • •

Opportunities  

Threats   Non   compliancy   to   reference   architecture   result   in   missed   synergies  between  LLs  

References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

Ecospace  –  Deliverable  W.2  D.1  –  Versions  of  the  API,  Ontology,  and   Reference  Architecture     As   soon   as   Living   Labs   identify   a   common   ground   to   collaborate   in   technical   solutions   and   applications   there   is   a   need   to   conclude   on   common   principles   regarding   the   software   platform   and   architecture.   A   reference   architecture   provides   this   common   principles   which   offers   opportunities   to   reuse   components,   to   integrate   with   heterogeneous   platforms   and   legacy   systems   and   to   interoperate  between  different  platforms.  

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

  Concept  category   Origin   Description  
Governance/Tools  

Collaboration  at  Rural  (C@R)  –  Reference  laboratory   The   Reference   Laboratory   acts   as   a   playground   for   integration   testing   and   demonstration   purposes.   Therefore   it   includes   to   validate  the  integration  of  CCSs  (Collaborative  Core  Services  -­‐  basic   services)   and   SCTs   (Software   Collaboration   Tools   -­‐   orchestrated  
55   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 services)  within  the  C@R  architecture.   The   reference   laboratory   delivers   a   reference   implementation   of   the   C@R   architecture,   a   basic   but   functional   miniature   of   what   an   entire   Living  Lab  can  become.  Partners  across  different  Living  Labs  can  test   integration  issues  and  demonstrate  simple  functions  on  top  of  it.     The   final   deployment   of   this   Integration   Testing   instrument   is   a   stable  set  of  tools  featuring  physical  machines,  mandatory  elements   of   the   C@R   architecture   (such   as   the   C@R   BUS),   virtual   machines,   additional   software,   repository   showcasing   documents   and   components  yet  to  be  tested  or  already  tested,  and  also  a  DVD  image   of  an  up-­‐to-­‐date  distribution  of  the  Reference  Laboratory  itself.   At  the  same  time,  the  Reference  Laboratory  has  to  be  flexible  enough   to   allow   users   find   the   best   practices   and   procedures,   modify   or   expand  it  on  their  own  to  fit  their  needs  without  interfering  with  the   rest  of  the  partners,  learn  to  choose  which  components  can  be  tested   and,  in  short,  grow  with  the  project.     SWOT  
Strengths   • • Weaknesses   Reference   laboratory   has   not   been   used   by   partners   that   are   not   sharing   components   and   tools   (only   local   testing   and   local  repositories)  

Application   of   up   to   date   tools   • for  distributed  development   Provision   of   integrated   testing   facilities   for   distributed   components     As   soon   as   there   is   cross   Living   • Lab   solution   development   a   common   infrastructure   for   design   time   components   is   key   for   success   –   the   Reference   Laboratory   could   serve   as   a   starting  point    

Opportunities   •

Threats   No  threats  

References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

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

56  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1     Support  and  govern  –  Supporting  services  and  tools  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description  
Tools  

Ecospace  –  Collaboration  tools  and  applications   ECOSPACE   has   developed   a   Collaborative   Working   Environment   (CWE)  reference  architecture  as  well  as  a  large  set  of  collaboration   services   and   tools   in   an   interoperable   collaborative   environment.   Some   of   the   used   concepts   have   already   been   contributed   to   standards  (W3C).  There  are  different  ways  of  interaction;  some  tools   are   directly   integrated   in   base   applications   or   make   use   of   a   particular   functionality   of   them,   whereas   others   interact   with   base     applications   through   CoCoSes   (Composite   Collaboration   Services),   which  provide  a  set  of  Web  Services  that  act  as  entry  points.     Expectation   awareness:   User   can   formalize   a   private   expectation   about  a  user-­‐behavior  in  relation  to  a  shared  artifact  (e.g.  Document,   Folder,  etc.)     Document   Tagging:   Implementation   of   the   popular   Web2.0   tagging-­‐paradigm  in  relation  to  artifacts  like  files  and  folders.     Workspace   Awareness:   Combination   of   Shared   Workspace   and   Instant  Messenger,  that  provides  availability  information  of   different  users  in  a  workspace.     CWE-­Blog:   Integration   of   blog-­‐software   as   own   artifact-­‐type   in   Shared  Workspaces-­‐System.     CWE-­Task   Management:   Extension   provides   full   functional   task-­‐management   system   in   relation   to   shared   documents   and   resources.     CWE-­Portal   Modules:   User   are   able   to   organize   and   layout   their   own   portal   with   functions   of   BSCW   and   third   party   tools   and   information.     SWAPit:   Application   provides   (visual)   retrieval   functionalities   for  
57   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 measuring  the  involvement  of  a  user  in  respect  to  a  special  topic.     MARTE   30.   Conferencing:   Web-­‐based   multimedia   conferencing   application  with  shared  desktop  and  rooms  support     VCS   Meeting   Space:   Supports   team   meetings   from   planning,   running  them  including  VoIP/conferencing,  to  capturing  minutes  in   a  highly  process  oriented  way.     VCS  Skype  Integration:  Makes  Skype  presence  and  communication   functionalities  securely  available  inside  collaborative  workspaces.     Sharing   Support:   context-­‐driven   e-­‐mail   attachments   sharing   with   mail   body,   on   BSCW.   Reduce   documents   redundancy   on   local   &   network  repositories-­‐     Teambuilder   &   Evaluator   Tool:   Supports   the   retrieval   of   adequate   manpower  in  respect  to  the  competencies  required  in  a  project.     Jammeswm:   Mobile   Application   which   gives   access   to   a   Shared   Workspace   in   a   user   friendly   way   and   includes   presence   and   instant   messaging  features.     TM4Wiki   Editor   &   Browser:   Authoring   environment   that   supports   the  creation,  maintenance,  and  use  of  ontology-­‐aware  repositories  of   objects  based  on  the  ISO  standard  –  Topic  Maps.     AJAX  Application  for  CoCoS:  “Upload  Document  and  Notify  Users   “:  Application  performs  exemplary  a  common  working  task.  Provide   a  created  document  and  inform  coworkers  about  the  new  document.     Synchronous  Collaborative  Tool:  Tool  provides  synchronous   communication   functions   for   two   or   more   people.   These   functionalities  will  be  used  for  Webservice-­‐purposes  in  the   ECOSPACE.     The   Assessment   of   Knowledge   Worker   Team   Productivity:   Supports  measurement  of  team  productivity.     Annotation   Based   Access   Control   with   UncleShare:   Access   control   mechanism   based   on   Annotation   developed   as   a   widget   using  SOA.     Holmes:  Social  Network  Extractor  and  Analyzer:  Extracting  social   networks  (weighted  graphs)  using  log  files  of  shared  workspaces  
58   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1   Expertise  Extractor  Using  Online  Shared  Workspaces:  Extracting   expertise  from  shared  workspaces  using  document-­‐based  events.     SIOC   Xplore   Widget:   Widget   provides   cross   CWEplatform   semantic   querying  and  data  integration.     CWE   Data   Importer   &   Exporter:   Facilitating   the   interchange   of   data  between  CWEs     RFID2Doc:   Toolset   (RFID-­‐Reader,   Document-­‐Management-­‐System)   enables  retrieval  of  meta-­‐information  of  printed  documents.     Post‐@  Communicator:  An  easy  to  use,  pure  presence  &  IM  system,   indicating  if  and  where  someone  is  working  and  via  which  channels   they  can  be  reached  (PC,  phone,  GSM,  IM  or  other  attached  systems).     Role  Based  Access  Control  Standard  with  DFOAF:  Based  on  FOAF,   this   tool   supports   the   construction   of   trusted   people-­‐networks   based  on  weighted  person  to  person  relations.   SWOT  
Strengths   • Weaknesses   Extensive   real   life   application   and   testing   of   tools   across   different  Living  Labs  is  missing   No  threats   Comprehensive   set   of   tools   and   • applications   for   CWEs   of   information  workers   Toolset   could   be   adapted   and   • applied   in   a   wide   context   of   Living  Lab  networks    

Opportunities   •

Threats  

References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance      

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

7.4
 

Manage and Track

59  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1     Monitoring  &  Assessment  –  Impact  assessment  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Methodology   COLLABS  Best  Practice  Assessment   Best  Practice  Analysis  framework,  based  on  the  harmonization  cube.   This   framework   is   especially   targeted   towards   SME   engagement,   which   is   the   focus   area   also   for   APOLLON   project.   The   assessment   dimensions   include:   user   involvement,   service   creation,   infrastructure,  governance,  innovation  outcomes,  as  well  as  methods   and  tools.  The  framework  was  applied  for  8  living  labs.  The  results   are   available   as   spider-­‐web   diagrams.   For   the   seven   categories   we   have  identified  three  different  thresholds  ranging  from  0  –  100.  The   value   0   means   that   a   Living   Lab   has   nothing   specific   installed   or   deployed   in   this   category   whereas   50   means   that   some   specific   measures  are  taken.   Strengths   •   Opportunities   • Weaknesses   Different   interpretation   and   understanding   of   requested   information     The   relevance   of   the   framework   unless   specified   in  more  detail  .  

SWOT  

The   framework   has   been   • validated  in  COLLABS  project  

Threats  

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

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   Deliverable   2.2   Technical   report:   Current   best   practices   of   LLs   and   services  for  SME  innovation  support   A  common  Monitoring  &  Assessment  framework  could  be  of  benefit   to   networked   Living   Labs   in   many   ways   and   should   form   part   of   the   methodology   &   tools   framework.   Combined   with   the   results   from  
60   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 relevance           Monitoring   &   Assessment   –   Success   criteria,   Living   Lab   network   sustainability     Concept  category   Origin   Description   Model   COLLABS  D4.2:  sustainability  plan   The   sustainability   and   viability   plan   for   the   CO-­‐LLABS   network   after   its   formal   project   duration.   To   this   aim,   the   CO-­‐LLABS   Thematic   Network   is   working   jointly   with   the   European   Network   of   Living   Labs   (ENoLL)   and   the   AMbient   Innovation   Family   of   Communities   (AMI   Communities)   in   order   to   shape   an   evolved   structure   able   to   set   a   stronger   synergy   with   the   Living   Lab   movement,   which   promises   to   become   the   most   important   Open   Innovation   mechanism  in  Europe.     This   deliverable   describes   the   process   of   forming   and   structuring   ENoLL,  the  most  sustainable  Living  Lab  network  in  Europe.       SWOT   Strengths  

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

Weaknesses  
May  not  be  applicable  since  most   networks  are  much  smaller    

Real   life   example   of   network   • creation  

  Opportunities  

Threats  
Directly   copying   does   not   advance  research  and  practice  

Learning   from   mistakes   and   • improving  the  process  

  References   APOLLON   Deliverable   4.2   -­‐   Joint   action   plan   and   roadmap   towards   sustainability   Network   sustainability   is   a   major   consideration   also   in   APOLLON.  
61   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 methodology   framework   relevance           Monitoring  &  Assessment  –  Impact  assessment   ENoLL  formation  is  a  great  example  of  network  creation  and  should   be  closely  followed  in  APOLLON  project.  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Tool/Methodology   Collaboration  at  Rural  (C@R)  –  M&A  Framework   Monitoring,   assessment   and   evaluation   has   been   a   continuous   activity   within   all   C@R   living   labs.   The   introduction   of   the   cyclic   and   spiral   development   approach   and   the   introduction   and   acceptation   within   the   project   of   action   research   methodology   principles,   has   brought  a  more  systematic   approach   to   organizing,   implementing   and   monitoring   the   main   innovation   and   experimentation   activities   in   the   Living   Labs.   This   approach   has   been   applied   as   a   common   framework   to   all   Living   Labs  in  order  to  gain  synergies  in  terms  of  identification  of  overlaps,   comparability  and  applicability  of  innovation  process  etc.   Due   to   the   evolution   of   the   C@R   Living   Labs,   this   framework   has   evolved   over   time.   The   upgraded   framework   is   focused   on   the   following  categories:   1)  Living  lab  External  Context   This  category  is  related  to  identifying  and  describing  the  Living  Lab   external   context   and   trends   driving   living   lab   developments   (e.g.   funding   available,   strategic   partners   business   needs,   rural   policy   changes).     2)  Living  Lab  Innovation  resources   This  category  is  related  to  the  Living  Lab  resources  in  the  beginning   of   the   time   period   under   study,   concretely:   network   infrastructure,   experimentation   resources   and   tools,   know-­‐how,   funds,   user   and   business  support  base  etc.    
62   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 3)  Living  Lab  Innovation  processes   This   category   is   related   to   observing   the   unfolding   innovation   processes  in  the  living  lab.  We  may  best  observe  these  processes  in   terms   of   actions   of   /   interactions   among   actors,   decision   making,   resulting   decisions   and   their   effects.   We   have   chosen   to   structure   these   observations   using   the   Action   Research   framework   of   cyclic   phases   (reformulated   into   main   living   labs   processes   of   Preparation,   Deployment   and   testing,   Use,   Learning).   It   has   turned   to   be   best   to   concentrate   these   observations   on   critical   living   lab   innovation   processes,  such  as:   ·   Living   lab   community   building,   involving   stakeholders,   and   its   evolution   ·   cooperation   between   developers   and   users   in   developing   tools   and   applications   ·   users   interacting   with   (prototype)   tools   and   applications   in   their   work  environment   ·  validation,  evaluation  and  learning  activities.   4)  User  involvement  and  feedback  processes   Because  of  its  importance  we  specifically  address  this  category.  It  is   related   to   the   decisions   and   processes   to   achieve   user   involvement   and   to   the   actual   processes   of   user   involvement   and   creation   as   unfolding  in  the  living  lab.  Examples:  joint  design  and  development,   applications   cocreation,   and   at   least   provision   of   feedback   to   designers.  This  will  allow  us  to  observe,  understand  and  assess  the   role   of   the   Living   lab   as   an   environment   of   open,   cooperative   and   real-­‐life  innovation.     5)  Other  related  processes   This  category  is  related  to  observing  other  activities,  interactions  or   events   that   are   part   of   what   is   happening   in   the   Living   Labs.   Specific   information   to   gather   in   the   scope   of   this   category   is   (only   if   processes  of  these  types  actually  can  be  observed):   ·  Strategic  management  of  the  living  lab   ·  Operational  management  of  the  living  lab   ·  Infrastructure  management   ·  Support  to  the  users  of  the  Living  Lab   ·  Incubation  processes  and  services.   6)  Impacts  and  value  creation   This  category  addresses  the  observation  of  effects  of  the  living  labs  
63   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 innovation   activities,   and   the   assessment   of   the   value   (benefits)   creation  based  on  these  effects.  The  value  creation  concept  is  to  be   considered   as   a   very   important   concept   to   understand   the   benefits   of   Living   labs,   both   in   terms   of   value   creation   results   and   in   terms   of   the  value  creation  mechanism  itself.  The  value  created  by  the  Living   lab  approach  consists  of  two  types  of  value:   ·  Value  of  the  concrete  Living  lab  innovation  results.  For  example  the   value  of   collaboration   platform   and   collaboration   tools   for   its   direct   stakeholders  (e.g.  users,  increasing  their  productivity)  as  well  as  for   the   wider   rural   environment   (e.g.   contributing   to   rural   infrastructure);   ·   Value   of   the   Living   lab   approach   as   an   innovation   environment.   Again   this   involves   value   for   stakeholders   (e.g.   providing   them   an   open  collaboration  environment)  as  well  as  value  for  the  wider  rural   environment   (e.g.   enabling   future   innovation   activities   and   collaborations).   7)  Living  Lab  maturity   This   category   aims   to   observe   and   benchmark   the   current   development   phase   and   quality   of   the   Living   Lab,   using   several   criteria  mainly  related  to  aspects  of  openness,  cooperation  and  real   life   innovation   environment   .   The   criteria   included   in   this   category   address  the  following  topics:   ·   Level   of   cooperation   based   on   public-­‐private   partnerships,   cooperation  with  technology  and  applications  providers;   ·   Early   and   continuous   involvement   of   citizens   /   the   general   public   /   users   /   other   stakeholders   in   real-­‐life   innovation;   establishment   of   forms  of  user  co-­‐creation;   ·   Cyclic   and   interactive   learning-­‐based   approach   (non-­‐linear,   non-­‐ waterfall)   of   design   –   prototyping   –   use   -­‐   evaluation   –   redesign   –   learning;   ·   Openness   for   new   partners   to   enter   the   collaborative   innovation   (users,  providers).   SWOT   Strengths  
• •

Weaknesses  
Different   interpretation   and   understanding   of   requested   information   Common   approach   doesn’t   allow   for   tailored   M&A   according   to   maturity  state,  context  etc.  
Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1   Opportunities  

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

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

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance           Manage  and  track  –  Success  Criteria   C@R   Deliverable   D3.1.3:   Living   Labs   Analysis   and   Assessment   Report,  C@R  consortium   A  common  Monitoring  &  Assessment  framework  could  be  of  benefit   to   networked   Living   Labs   in   many   ways   and   should   form   part   of   the   methodology  &  tools  framework.  Based  on  the  findings  and  lessons   learned   of   C@R   an   adapted   and   contextual   version   of   the   M&A   framework   need   to   be   developed   for   application   within   the   4   vertical  pilots.  

  Concept  category   Origin   Description   Methodology/Model   CoreLabs   –   D3.1a   –   Innovation   Aspects,   Prerequisites   &   Requirements   A  Living  Lab  strive  to  stimulate  innovation  and  creativity,  hence  its   ultimate   success   will   be   measured   against   the   quantifiable,   accepted   and  sustainable  innovation  it  produces.  The  success  of  a  Living  Lab   can   be   shaped   around   four   basic   elements:   Innovation,   Collaboration,  Multi-­‐contextuality  and  Sustainability   Innovation:     The  success  factors  suggested  for  Living  Lab  innovation  success  are:     − Number  of  peer-­‐reviewed  Publications  

65  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 − Number  of  legally  held  Patents   − Number  of  Products  that  reach  the  market   An   even   more   holistic   approach   relevant   to   the   philosophy   behind   Living   Labs   includes   the   following   aspects   for   measuring   an   innovation  from  different  perspectives.     − Resources  –  human  competencies,  skills,  knowledge,  financial   resources   − Internal  processes  –  new  firms,  spin-­‐offs  R&D  activities   − Commercial   –   new   science   and   technology   advances   in   a   region   illustrated   bu   number   of   patents,   new   to   market   products,  enterprises  involved  in  clusters   − Collaboration;   university   R   &   D   financed   by   firms,   inter-­‐ company   collaboration   and   cooperation   between   research   institutes  and  enterprises.     Collaboration:   Participation   among   many   stakeholders.   But   also   collaboration   in   terms  of:   − Planned:   the   form   that   is   used   for   long-­‐term   strategies   towards  an  established  goal   − Mediated:  The  use  of  a  mediator  to  facilitate  the  collaboration   between  stakeholders     − Ad-­‐hoc   collaborations:   a   short-­‐term   and   spontaneous   form   of   co-­‐operation  initiated  for  a  specific  situation   Multi-­Contextuality:   By  introducing  an  environment  of  multiple  and  diverse  dimensions,   users   can   contribute,   evaluate   and   be   evaluated   in   a   real-­‐life   situation   free   of   conscious   and   often   contrived   reminders   that   a   traditional  testing  environment  might  evoke.     Sustainability:   This  is  an  issue  that  becomes  an  indicator  of  the  long-­‐term  success  of   the   individual   Living   Labs.   The   meaning   of   sustainable   for   regions   and  individuals  are:     − Employment   Creation   &     Longevity:   the   aim   is   to   stimulate   innovation   and   enterprise   of   participating   regions   and   thus   the  prosperity.     − Inclusion:   Provide   and   environment   that   enables   the   understanding  of  diversities  in  terms  of  age,  culture,  gender,  

66  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 ethnicity,  national.     Competitiveness:   The   creation   of   a   Pan-­‐European   Living   labq   as   a   supporting  infrastructure  for  innovation.     SWOT   Strengths  

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

 

Provides  a  basis  for  assessment  of   • Living  Lab  success   •

Opportunities  

Threats  

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

  References   APOLLON   methodology   framework   relevance       D3.1a  –  Innovation  Aspects,  Prerequisities  &  Requirements   Assessing   the   impact   and   evaluating   the   outcomes   of   a   Living   Lab   or   network  of  Living  Lab  is  essential  

8. Conclusions
  The APOLLON partners consider the state of the art that has been put together in this deliverable as representative and comprehensive. APOLLON is very well networked and comprise some of the key pioneering stakeholders of past and ongoing Living Lab initiatives in person. No dedicated Living Lab networking initiative has been detected on an operational level. Initiatives like ENoLL rather concentrate on dissemination of know-how and the formation of a larger Living Lab community. The networking aspect of the Living Lab methodology is therefore not very well investigated reconfirming the necessity for APOLLON to develop the methodology framework for cross border Living Lab networks. When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main objective for all of these is similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The
67   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network. Subsequently, the activities are targeted to facilitate and achieve this. The harmonization and integration of tools and methods between the partners are considered as a next step in the cooperation between the members of the network. The objective here is to have a set of tools, methods or even infrastructure that enables to exchange comparable information, to perform research in a similar way within the various Living labs that are part of the network. Finally, a third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up and executed. However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are in still in the exploratory phase. This is the case for e.g. EnoLL, Inoll,etc. .When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs. For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centered research methods that can be applied, then a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs. However, to a certain extent relevant methodologies, tools, governance and organizational structures are existing applicable at all stages of the LL networking lifecycle. They range e.g. from technological solutions (e.g. reference architectures for Collaborative Working Environments (CWEs), collaboration tools) to common frameworks and models (e.g. Monitoring & Assessment, roles & responsibilities). The Support & Govern category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art. Obviously the need to co-innovate across 2 or more Living Labs has brought up initial methodologies and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methodologies and tools has not been investigated systematically and offer big potential for the APOLLON consortium to take them to the next level. In general the potential of available methodologies & tools and structures adding value to participating Living Labs of a synergetic network seems to be huge. In any case, no one of the interviewed experts have provided final answers on the constitution of a methodological framework for cross border Living Lab networks and further research on the ground need to be invested. A simple SWOT analysis indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methodologies and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across 2 or more Living Labs. Therefore extensive experience with some promising methods and tools are missing despite of their obvious applicability in a network of cross border Living Labs. At least some of the available Living Lab methods and tools have been well applied in real life on individual level but not in a networking context. The modification of these methods and tools for networking purposes offers a good starting point for the APOLLON methodology framework. This SOTA analysis will now serve as a starting point for further APOLLON tasks also within work package 1 – Methodology and Tools. In particular the requirements elicitation process for

68  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

9. References
[1] Gassmann, 2006, Opening Up the Innovation Process: Towards and Agenda, R&D Management, 36,3,223-228 [2] Munsch 2009, [3] Ramírez 1993, From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy, Harvard Business Review, 71, 7, 65-77 [4] Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004, The future of competition: co-creating unique value with customers, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN: 9781578519538 [5] Rosted, 2009, National Innovation Strategy for Finland, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Finland [6] Wenger et al, 2002, Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press. [7] Mitchell, Boyle, 2010, Knowledge and Organisation: a social-practice perspective, Journal of Organization Science

Appendix A - SOTA interview guideline
  The following questionnaire have been used as a guideline for the different interviews. Individual adaptations have been introduced by the different interviewers to reflect the targeted interviewee.   APOLLON  approach/background   LL  networking  methodology  framework   The  main  objectives  for  the  horizontal  WP  APOLLON  Methodology  &  Tools  are  to  create   • • • a  Methodology  for  (setting-­‐up)  a  cross-­‐border  network  of  Living  Labs   an  Approach  to  apply  and  validate  the  methodology  within  the  APOLLON  project   a  Framework  to  measure  its  success  within  the  APOLLON  project  

The  APOLLON  methodology  &  tool  set  will  build  on  best  practices  and  lessons  learned  from   earlier  Living  Lab  network  initiatives  and  the  vertical  domain-­‐specific  Living  Lab  networks   set-­‐up  as  the  four  experiments  within  APOLLON.  It  will  consist  of  an  adaptable  framework   for  planning,  specifying,  building,  and  implementing  practical  and  theoretical  aspects  of   Living  Lab  networks.  
69   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 The  APOLLON  methodology  and  tool  set  aims  at  providing  support  and  help  for  sharing  and   harmonizing  Living  Lab  platforms  between  thematic  cross-­‐border  networks  of  European   Living  Labs  as  far  as  relevant  with  the  practical  realities  of  the  available  technologies,  actors   and  business  environments.  APOLLON  methodology  &  tool  set  will  thus  address  how  to  find   synergies  between  the  actors,  scale  up  lead  markets,  facilitate  strategic  partnerships   between  innovative  SMEs  and  micro  entrepreneurs,  orchestrate  systematic  RDI  processes   and  stimulate  cross-­‐border  innovation  in  Europe.   State  of  the  art  analysis   This  task  will  create  a  catalogue  of  the  most  successful  governance  structures,  ecosystem   set  ups  and  lessons  learned  from  earlier  Living  Lab  projects  (as  far  as  they  are  of  relevance   for  cross-­‐border  networks  of  Living  Labs)  identified  State-­‐of-­‐the-­‐Art  Living  Lab  network   initiatives,  as  well  as  from  the  thematic  Living  Lab  networks  within  the  APOLLON  project.  It   will  also  catalogue  existing  tools  for  cross-­‐border  Living  Lab  collaboration.    
1. Background  information     1. Your  name/organisation:  

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

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

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

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

 
2. General  

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

 
2. How  many  Living  Labs  are  forming  part  of  your  initiative?  Who  are  they?       3. Who  are  the  stakeholders  of  the  Living  Labs?  
70   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1 • • • • • • • •  
4. What  kinds  of  LL  methodologies  have  been  experimented  with?  

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

 
5. Which  methodologies  have  been  successfully  applied?    

 
6. In  what  way  do  you  consider  the  Living  Lab  methodologies  superior  than  traditional   methodologies?       7. Do  you  see  any  benefits  in  collaborating  with  other  Living  Labs?  Which  benefits  do  you  see?  

 
8. In  which  stage  of  LL  lifecycle  do  you  consider  LL  networking/collaboration  as  most  beneficial?     Why?       9. What  aspects  of  LL  collaboration  has  been  part  of  your  initiative?  

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

 
11. Which  tools  have  been  dedicated  to  support  LL  networking/collaboration?       12. How  successful  a  particular  tool  has  been  applied?  

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

71  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

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

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

 
16. Is  there  any  documentation  available  in  terms  of  LL  networking  results?  What  kind  of?       3. Category  questions     Connect  

 
LL  networking  initiation  

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

           
4. What   kind   of   working   relationship   needs   to   be   established   in   order   to   enable   collaboration   between  Living  Labs?         5. What  kind  of  collaboration  in  a  network  of  Living  Labs  is  beneficial  to  you?   3. What  helps  you  to  identify  Living  Labs  that  may  be  relevant  for  you  to  collaborate  with?   2. What  criteria  did  you  apply  to  choose  your  LLs  to  collaborate  with?  

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

 
Policy  frameworks  &  regulations     1. To  what  extent  is  your  business  affected  by  local  policies  and  regulations?  
72   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1            
4. Have   you   ever   been   supported/impeded   by   foreign   regulations   when   collaborating   with   cross-­‐ border  Living  Labs?   3. In  what  way  foreign  regulations  and  policies  influenced  your  collaboration  between  LLs?   2. To  what  extent  is  your  initiative  or  project  affected  by  local  policies  and  regulations?  

     
Set  boundaries  and  engage   5. Are  there  regulatory  bottlenecks  for  cross-­‐border  PPPs?  

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

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

    3. Which   resources   are   involved   in   LL   co-­‐operation?   (e.g.   competencies,   job   profiles   that   co-­‐operation  partner  have)        
5. What  kind  of  business  modalities,  working  relationships,  governance  and  legal  frameworks  apply   to  your  LL  cooperation?   4. What  is  the  individual  stakeholders’  added  value  of  LL  cooperation?  

 

73  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1
6. How  did  you  handle  IPR  issues  in  a  network  of  Living  Labs?       Collaborative  solution  development     1. Have  you  collaborated  between  two  or  more  Living  Labs  to  develop  solutions?  

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

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

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

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

   
2. Is  there  a  need  to  access  other  end  user  communities  beyond  the  ones  available  in  local  Living   Lab?  If  yes,  why?   3. Which   Methods   and   Tools   are   used   in   the   Living   Lab   network   e.g.   to   integrate   end-­‐user   communities?  

 

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

   
Cross  border  field  experimentation  
74   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1
  1. Have   you   ever   applied   methods   or   tools   across   different   Living   Labs   to   do   some   field   experimentation?  

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

   
Manage  and  track  

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

           
Commercialisation     1. Have  you  ever  reached  the  stage  of  commercialization  of  new  products  and  services?   3. Do  you  monitor  the  added  value  of  collaboration  with  other  Living  Labs?   2. Do  you  apply  a  M&E  framework  that  is  applied  in  other  Living  Labs  as  well?  

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

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

   
75   Final version, 21/05/2010  

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1      

76  

Final version, 21/05/2010  

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful