Upload
monica-edwards-schachter
View
144
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The emergence of Living Labs is increasingly calling the attention of practitioners, researchers and policymakers, springing as collaborative spaces and social innovation experiments around the world. They are usually characterized by the active involvement of users (citizens and communities) as co-creators of knowledge in innovation processes. This paper critically reviews literature on Living Labs and analyzes narratives on users’ and communities participation in a sample of 120 LLs obtained from the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) from 2006 to 2012. Our findings show that LL is an ‘umbrella’ concept which includes a diversity of cross-sector societal experiments which favour systemic and boundary-spanning collaboration between private, public, and people partnership. Different discourses on the role of users were identified, covering many approaches to their participation in innovation processes. In most of LLs users are considered as source of information for detecting needs, with much focus on end-customer validation in testing and experimentation and a very limited user’s participation as co-creators in innovation processes. Although the widely accepted discourses on ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-production’ with users and communities in LLs, their contribution as part of a broader social development or social change agenda from the perspective of social innovation remains unclear
Citation preview
Do systemic collaboration and network governance matter? Living Labs beyond user-centric innovation
Edwards-Schachter1, M.; Tams2, S. & Moreno Valdés3, M. T. 1INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Spain2School of Management, University of Bath, UK2TECNALIA, Parque Tecnológico de Álava , Spain
14th March 2013
Outline
Interest & motivation
Research questions
Theoretical approaches
Methodoloy
Some preliminar results
Conclusion
4
Interest & Motivation
LL is an expanding phenomenon that increasingly attracts
the attention of practitioners, researchers and policymakers
LL are promoted by the European Policy Agenda as new
forms of support for open and user-driven innovation
management
Limits/constraints of the multilevel innovation system
approach
Knowledge generation, Innovation complexity and
interactions between users and producers
Emergence of new innovation organisational model/s?
The ENoLL waves7th.
Wave 2013
Research Questions
What is the meaning of the term LL and what distinguishes it from
other ‘innovation labs’, such as Test and Experimentation
Platforms (TEPs), SSRI (Social Spaces of Research and Innovation)
and ‘Change Labs’?
Which are the roles of people (users) in LL? Can LL be ‘incubators’
for community-driven innovation?
How do LLs enact systemic collaboration and network
governance?
Theoretical approaches
Open Innovation: the collaborative innovation paradigm
(Chesbrough, 2003, 2006)
Democratization of innovation & user innovation roles
(customer, ‘lead’ , used-centred, user-driven, user-
investor … (Von Hippel, 1986, 2005; Thomke & Von Hippel, 2002; Mirijamdotter et al.,
2006; Edvardsson et al., 2006; Bergvall-Kåreborn & Ståhlbröst, 2009)
Theoretical approaches
LL= Change Lab? New ‘modes of organizing’ innovation? The
transition management scope (Frössler et al., 2007)
Empowerment capabilities perspectives (Heiskala, 2007; Cunningham et al.,
2012; Franz et al., 2012)
LLs as territorial development instruments (the open innovation
functional region) (Santoro & Conte, 2009)
KNOWLEDGE
Agents, roles,
interaccions
New modes ‘TO ORGANISE’ the innovation process?
Process of Schumpeterian ‘creative destruction’ and learning
- Other agentes?
e.g.: social groups
- New roles
e.g.: user-investor
(Howe, 2005)
(NEW/RECOMBINED KNOWLEDGE
INNNOVATION
social innovation
(Mulgan, 2006; Franz et al., 2012; Loogma et al., 2012)
grassroots innovation
(Gupta et al., 2003; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2013)
green innovation and eco-innovation (Rennings, 2000)
frugal innovation (Prahalad, 2005; Bhatti & Ventresca,
2013)
inclusive innovation (Johnson & Dahl, 2012)
More visibility of an extended ‘nature’ (socio-technical view) of innovation and ‘hidden innovations’ ?
Theoretical approaches
LL & users’ roles
Normal or passive’ users
User integration (‘consumer view’)
User integration for detection of needs
User lead (sources of new product and/or
service ideas with high commercial potential)
‘
LL & users’ roles
User as o-producer (working with producers in jointly
generation of value)
Consumer/user as co-creators (jointly knowledge
generation, sharing knowledge within a community of
practice)
Users as investors
… in all cases users are citizens!
INS
TIT
UT
E O
F I
NN
OV
AT
ION
AN
D K
NO
WL
ED
GE
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT Methodoloy & Sample
Search of scholarly publications between 2001-2012
considering scientific journals, conference papers
proceedings, project and policy reports and books
Database elaboration (compilation of N=120 case
study). Source: ENoLL and LL’s webs
Qualitative methodology (content analysis)
http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglabs
The ENoLL network
> 300 LL
INS
TIT
UT
E O
F I
NN
OV
AT
ION
AN
D K
NO
WL
ED
GE
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT LL definitions
Definition Authors
‘experimentation environments in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and in which (end) users are considered ‘co-producers’. They are at the core of current new concepts for open innovation platforms.
Ballon et al., 2005, p. 15
‘research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts’
Piersonand Lievens, 2005,
‘The Living Lab concept refers to a R&D methodology where innovations, such as services, products and application enhancements, are created and validated in collaborative, multi-contextual empirical real-world settings’
Eriksson et al. 2005
‘naturalistic environment instrumented with sensing and observational technologies and used for experimental evaluation’
Intille et al., 2006, p.350
is a user-centric innovation milieu built on every-day practice and research, with an approach that facilitates user influence in open and distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life contexts, aiming to create sustainable values’.
Bergvall-Kåreborn et al. (2009)
‘innovation projects based on open and user-centric innovation methodologies , can form collaboration networks to support small firms and other actors to engage in cross-border collaboration and to accelerate the development and acceptance of innovations’
Schaffers & Turkama
INS
TIT
UT
E O
F I
NN
OV
AT
ION
AN
D K
NO
WL
ED
GE
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT LL definitions
‘a system based on a business-citizens-government partnership which enables users to take active part in the research, development and innovation process. Products and services are developed in a real-life environment in a human centric and co-creative way, based on continuous feedback mechanisms between the developers and the users’ (ALTEC, 2009, p. 6).
ALTEC, 2009, p. 6
The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL, see www.openlivinglabs.eu) defines a Living Lab as “an open innovation environment in real-life settings in which user-driven innovation is fully integrated within the cocreation process for new services, products and societal infrastructures”.
ENoLL (2011)
‘we understand living labs as constituting a setting for collaborative innovation by offering a collaborative platform for research, development, and experimentation with product and service innovations in real-life contexts, based on specific methodologies and tools, and implemented through concrete innovation projects and community-building activities. The focus is on mature technologies and operating close to market, which indicates that acceptance and integration of the developed technologies and services are major research topics’.
Schaffers and Turkama, 2012, p. 26
‘are open innovation environments in real-life settings, in which user-driven innovation is fully integrated within the co-creation process of new services, products and societal infrastructures in a regional harmonized context (the “Open Innovation Functional Region”) catalyzing the synergy of SMEs Collaborative Networks and Virtual Professional Communities in a Public, Private, People Partnership’
Santoro & Conte, 2009, p. 1
Test and Experimentation Platform typology (Ballon et al., 2005, p. 3)
• Openess
• Public
involvement
• Commercial
maturity
• Vertical scope
• Scale
What a LL is?
What a Living Lab (LL) is?
A. Space (laboratory) where designers and researchers can observe and experiment with users
B. Methodoloy for developing products and services with user collaboration
C. Platform for collaborative innovation (environment/milieu to experiment innovation with participation of diverse agents)
D. Instrument for R&D and innovation policies
E. Territorial development model
What a LL is? The EC definition
A LL is a real-life test and experimentation environment where users and
producers co-create innovations. LLs have been characterised by the
European Commission as Public-Private-People Partnerships (PPPP) for
user-driven open innovation.
Co-Creation: co-design by users and producers
Exploration: discovering emerging usages, behaviours and market opportunities
Experimentation: implementing live scenarios within communities of users
Evaluation: assessment of concepts, products and services according to socio-ergonomic, socio-cognitive and socio-economic criteria.
Fuente: ENoLL (2011)
%
0
20
40
60
80
100
72.566.2
28.3
13.2
Users roles
Exploring governance structure
0
20
40
60
80
100
25.8 34.218.3 21.7
%
Context
Leadership (the host institution?)
%%
Some exploratory results (N=120)
Local Regional National/International0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
22.114.7
35.3
13.2 14.7
Conclusion
There is no consensus in the LL definition, existing
several approaches to the LL concept, from testbeds to
open functional regions and ‘change’ living experiments
LLs are models of innovation that include a wider range
of participants / wider constituencies, traditionally
excluded from the innovation process
Much focus on end-customer validation in testing and
experimentation and participation of users to detect
needs … but not using the full potential of user
collaboration in other stages of the innovation process .
Conclusion
Systemic collaboration , governance structures
and mechanism and the role of users as co-
creators are unclear and seem very limited
The potential role of LL as part of a broader
social development or social change agenda
remains largely unexplored
User- producer relationship,
Knowledge co-management and co-creation
Conclusion: open questions about …
‘innovation’ Labs’ raise questions about ‘networks’‘boundaries’, ‘practice’, ‘learning’ ... But also ‘identity’, ‘culture’, ‘ethics’ ...
Thank you!