The Evolution of Intermediary Activities: Broadening the Concept of Facilitation in Living Labs

Hakkarainen, Louna; Hyysalo, Sampsa

doi:10.22215/timreview/960

Cited by 62 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, in co-creation's learning activity sufficient results need to be gained, and these results are to be integrated into the next rounds of learning [55,59,60]. To facilitate achieving sufficient learning results and feed-backs, trust and coherence need to be built and preserved, calling for respecting personal values within user-groups and between users and other stakeholders, eventually using intermediation if a divide tends to arise [60][61][62]. For example, in the context of elderly people as users in ICT projects (ambient assisted living), trust needs to be preserved through respecting the value of privacy and self-determination [23,24].…”

Section: Urban Living Labs Learningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

Geenhuizen

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban living labs is a practical methodology in improving sustainability in cities by facilitating collaborative learning and innovation in a real-life environment, thereby mainly responding to the needs of users (citizens). The paper aims to filter a list of key learnings on urban living labs through the lens of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). One of the motivations is that key learnings on urban living labs are mainly derived from means-goal effectiveness (MGE) thinking while the urban setting calls for a broader perspective due to complexity and tension from the multi-actor, multifunctional, and multi-scalar character of cities. The filtering reveals almost 40 learnings as 'overlap' and 'exclusive for MGE'. Importantly, five learnings are identified as specific for RRI and potentially enriching living lab methodology: ethical and normative principles like health, safety, security, and equality between societal groups, and a wider distribution of benefits and risks of living lab outcomes, in particular, contradictory sustainability issues. The RRI filtering causes three practical implications: coping with uneven power distribution between stakeholders, limited feasibility of applying the comprehensive learning framework, and challenges of overarching platform structures enabling to better incorporate RRI concerns in living lab methodology. The findings as presented in an adapted list are new, as RRI values and concerns have seldom been applied to practical innovation and have never been explicitly applied to urban living labs' performance beyond the borders of effectiveness thinking. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3833 2 of 16ICT-based innovations [17]. Since then, ENoLL membership has been granted to 440 historically recognized living labs (Appendix A).Application of living labs methodology is by no means everywhere the same. To date, the methodology has been used in practice with different emphasis on users' roles in finding solutions, prior definition of structure and processes and focus on exploration or exploitation of opportunities [1,18,19]. Furthermore, we mention differences in spatial and organizational scale: living lab methodology has been applied as small-scale physical experimentation spaces but also as networked spaces at regional scale that act as platforms for sets of experimentations using some sort of open innovation [20][21][22]. The common core of the methodology, however, has remained. This paper deals with urban living labs within a 'larger category' of living labs. What urban living labs distinguish, is indicated in the literature as follows: being localized or place-based; involvement of local government and local citizens; acting as locally involved public-private partnership; applying coproduction/co-creation with local actors; and typically dealing with urban sustainability problems [23][24][25][26][27][28]. Urban living labs may include various stages in innovation, running from ideation and experimentation to upscaling and application in practice/market. In urban practice toda...

show abstract

Section: Urban Living Labs Learningsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying an RRI Filter in Key Learning on Urban Living Labs’ Performance

Geenhuizen

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The user-feedback acquired in any LL has a formative purpose and is therefore processed and integrated in the development process in a highly iterative manner (Følstad, 2008). Overall, a LL can contribute to every phase of the innovation process by orchestrating and coordinating the activities of exploration, co-creation, experimentation and evaluation (Feurstein et al, 2008;Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, 2016). The LL thereby generates value to the entire supply chain (Ståhlbröst & Holst, 2012) and can also take explore and assess the environmental, social, and economic effects of the new products or services created and tested in the LL (Bergvall-Kåreborn et al, 2009;Leminen et al, 2012).…”

Section: Four Key Ll Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Make Living Labs More Financially Sustainable? Case Studies in Italy and the Netherlands

Gualandi¹,

Romme²

2019

EMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many urban environments, so-called Living Labs have been created. A Living Lab (LL) is an emerging innovation methodology that may serve to reduce the gap between new technology development and the adoption of this new technology by users, by bringing together all key actors in the innovation process: public administration, education institutes, companies, and citizens. However, a substantial number of LLs struggle to translate the customer value created into a sustainable business model. As a result, many LLs are financially not sustainable. Several previous studies found that most LLs primarily rely on public grants; thus, they often stop their activities when public funding ends. In this paper, we draw on a comprehensive literature review and practical evidence from three cases, to develop a framework of various funding options which can be employed by any LL that seeks to become more financially sustainable.

show abstract

“…Bergvall-Kåreborn et al, 2015;Brankaert et al, 2015;Dell'Era & Landoni, 2014;Dutilleul et al, 2010;Edvardsson et al, 2012;Femeniás &, Hagbert, 2013;Guimont & Lapointe, 2016;Hakkarainen & Hyysalo, 2016;Leminen et al, 2012Leminen et al, , 2015Nyström et al, 2014;Rits et al, 2015;Schuurman et al, 2016;Ståhlbröst & Lassinantti, 2015;Veeckman et al, 2013;Westerlund & Leminen, 2011). The early living lab literature not only focuses on explaining innovation and development activities with users in different contexts but also offers a broad variety of definitions.…”

Section: From the Guest Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%