user centred open innovation domain landscape within the european network of living labs (enoll)
DESCRIPTION
User Centred Open Innovation Domain Landscape within the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Marc Pallot The University of Nottingham, UK Piotr Krawczyk* JAMK, Finland Anna Kivilehto ENoLL, Belgium. 4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013 Manchester (UK) 27-30/8. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
User Centred Open Innovation Domain Landscape within the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)
JAMK University of Applied Sciences
Marc Pallot The University of Nottingham, UKPiotr Krawczyk* JAMK, FinlandAnna Kivilehto ENoLL, Belgium
4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013 Manchester (UK) 27-30/8
TWO-PART ENOLL SURVEYA) ENoLL Pre-Audit and Matchmaking Survey for International R&D&I Cooperation For Living Lab Managers/People in Charge of Living Labs
B) ENoLL Innovation Capability, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance Self –assessment tool for Living Labs for LL Managers/People in Charge of LL and all other LL Team Members
This two-part questionnaire is designed to capture your Living Lab demographic info, including if applicable your Living Lab profile and cross-border RDI interests such as innovation capability level, entrepreneurial orientation, performance, thematic domains, critical transversal themes and finally landscape dimensions.
Autcomes so far:ENoLL Open Innovation LandscapeENoLL Horizon Matchmaking Initiative (interest showed by 90% from 63 responses so far)Conex Visualization for continous matchmaking
Upcoming: 3-6 months – Comprehensive ENoLL Wide Survey Report (reflective practitioners)Possible future outcomes:ENoLL Wide Benchmarking/Best Practices SharingENoLL Matchmaking as Continuous and Systematic Process (Horizon2020, World Bank, Multinationals, Born Global SMEs, you name it) next ICT Days ?
2
TWO-PART ENOLL SURVEYACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been carried out as a result of the ENoLL wide survey. The author wishes to acknowledge the ENoLL General Assembly and Council Members for their support. The author also wishes to acknowledge his gratitude and appreciation to following ENoLL community members for their support and/or contribution during
the research process: Anna Kivilehto, Jarmo Elukka Eskelinen, Lauri Tuomi, Esa Ala-Uotila, Marc Pallot, Annika Sällström, Mikael Borjeson, Dimitri Schuurman, Pieter Ballon, Seppo Leminen, and Tuija Hirvikoski. Special thanks go to Jukka “Jups” Heikkilä for his mentorship, comments and suggestions for improvements of the paper.
3
Living Lab Ecosystem
4
Source: Prof. Alvaro Duarte de Oliveira President of the European Network of Living Labs at World Bank - SDN Forum 2012 - ICT Sector Day February 23rd, 2012
Living Lab Ecosystem
5
* MacDonald and Associates, 2004
Chasm**
Pre-Commercial Gap*** Geoffrey A Moore: Crossing the Chasm, 1999
Source: Living Labs for user-driven open innovation,January 2009
Directorate-General for theInformation Society and Media
Unit F4 New Infrastructure Paradigms andExperimental Facilities
European Commission
Problem / Objective
PROBLEM• The lack of a well-established and up-to-date Living Lab (LL) domain landscape
based on empirical evidence from an in-depth study appears to be an important issue for the open innovation community.
OBJECTIVE• A clearly defined, valid, reliable and timely picture of the LL domain landscape
could help to reach a broader understanding of the Living Lab phenomena. By defining the point “A” where the open innovation network is at the moment, the community can establish point “B” where it wants to be in the foreseeable future, a critical strategic issue from the management point of view.
6
APPROACH• Comparison between two data sources, namely: LL publication and LL project practice
to establish the level of change and to distinguish this phenomenon from the Open Innovation in its broader sense
METHODS• Literature Review and SurveyTECHNIQUES• In the bar charts the numbers represent the amount of related papers found by Google
Scholar. In order to make the comparison possible a multiplication scale factor has been calculated and applied to the quantities/magnitudes assigned to project practice related concepts reported in the ENoLL survey. For example a scale factor of 2000 has been applied on the LL practice data in order to make them comparable with the publications on open innovation in a broader sense. A link to an online survey has been sent to about 320 Living Lab managers within ENoLL and 40 (now 63) responses were received by 30 April 2013, which represented a 12,5% of the entire population.
Approach/Method/Technique
DIMENSIONS • Interaction mode; Innovation mode; User’s role; User’s type; Use case goal; Research
type; Innovation type; Evaluation focus; Collaboration style; Research areas/concepts (see Table below) “research type” (individual users, group of users), “evaluation focus” (reliability, usability, acceptability, adoptability), “collaboration style” (structured, semi-structured, unstructured), “interaction mode” (observed subject, value creator).
Landscaping Open Innovation
Abbreviation Area/Concept Reference
Web2.0 Web 2.0 User Design(Frappaolo & Keldsen, 2008; O’Reilly, 2004)
UGC User Generated Content(O’Reilly, 1998; O’Reilly & Battelle, 2009)
SN Social Networking (User Design) (Gaver, 1999; 2004)UCD User Centred Design (Garrett, 2002; Von Hippel, 2005)
UX User Experience
(de Ruyter et al., 2007; Fleming, 1998; Scapin et al., 2012; Pallot and Pawar, 2012; ISO 9241-210)
UC User Co-creation
(Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000; Pallot, 2009; Pallot and Pawar, 2012; Mulder & Stappers, 2009; Interact, 2009; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010).
Abbreviation Area/Concept Reference
UCI User Centric Innovation (Bilgram et al., 2008)
UDI User Driven Innovation (Von Hippel, 1986)
ED Empathic Design(Leonard & Rayport, 1997; Landwher, 2007)
SED Socio-Emotional Design(Norman, 1995, 1998, 200, 2007; Goleman, 2006)
PD Participatory Design (Schuler & Namioka, 1997)
AR Action Research (User Design)(Lewin, 1946; Schaffers et al., 2008; Bergvall-Kåreborn, 2009)
PAR Participatory Action Research (James et al., 2007)
CICrowdsourcing Design/Innovation
(Gaver, 1999; 2004)
UA Usability Analysis/Design (Gould & Lewis, 1985)
CD Contextual Design (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998),
XD Experience Design (Arts & Marzano, 2003)Source: (Pallot, 2010; Krawczyk, 2012).
LL Landscape
Living Lab Research Domain Landscape (Pallot et al., 2010)
Findings
Open Innovation Research Domain Landscape based on the overall publication
Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the practicesLiving Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the LL publication
Living Lab Research Domain Landscape (Pallot et al., 2010)
Findings
Open Innovation Research Domain Landscape based on the overall publications Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the practices
Comparing OI Publication with LL Practice
In the comparison between areas/concepts as broadly published and as practiced within LL it appears that there are areas/concepts that are proportionally:• Quite similar: (s) Web2.0, UCD and UX;• Dissimilar (LL↑)with a very large contrast in favour of the LL practice: UC, UCI, UDI, PD, UA;
• Dissimilar (LL↓)with a very large contrast in favour of the broad publication: SN, ED, SED, AR, CI;• Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the LL practice: CD• Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the broad publication: PAR
The top five ( Top 5) on the LL practice side are: UX, UC, UDI, PD, Web2.0The top five on the broad publication side are: UX, SN, Web2.0, AR, ED
s
s
s LL↑
LL↑ LL↑LL↑
LL↓ LL↓
Top 5
Top 5
Top 5
Top 5
Top 5
Findings
LL Research Domain Landscape based on the LL specific publications Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the practices
Comparing LL Publication with LL Practice
In the comparison between areas/concepts as broadly published and as practiced within LL it appears that there are areas/concepts that are proportionally:• Quite similar: (s) UX, Web2.0, UGC, ED and PD;• Dissimilar (LL↑)with a large contrast in favour of the LL practice: UC, UCD; UDI
• Dissimilar (LL↓)with a very large contrast in favour of the LL publication: UA, AR;• Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the LL practice: UCI, UDI, SED• Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the LL publication: SNThe top five ( Top 5) on the LL practice side are: UX, UC, UDI, PD, Web2.0The top five on the broad publication side are: UA, UX, Web2.0, UDI, PD
s
s
s
LL↑
LL↑
LL↑
LL↑
LL↓ LL↓
Top 5
Top 5
Top 5
Top 5
Top 5
s
LL↓
LL↓
Discussion and ConclusionsDISCUSSIONDrafting a Living Lab Domain Landscape revealed that :• the LL research community is far more advanced and active in the areas such as “User Co-creation”,
“User Driven Innovation” and “Participatory Design”.• “Usability Analysis” and “Contextual Design” remain proportionally more applied in LL compared to
the overall amount of publications about Open Innovation in general . • Interestingly "Experience Design" seems to emerge quite clearly out of the amount of publications,
unfortunately, we missed it in the survey while it would be good to know whether it is also emerging in terms of LL practice.
CONCLUSIONS• The research outcomes may well be used to help ENoLL to gain insights into LL practice and research
interests with regard to possible future cross border R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across the network and perhaps innovation management (IM) community in general.
• Based on individual Living Lab profiles and aggregated information, internal and external benchmarking may become possible for individual member organisations as well as the network in general.
• Through this study, ENoLL members (living labs) could become aware of each other’s R&D&I interests as well as their expertise revealed by the project practice. ENoLL may organize and target future opportunities with more precision for possible international R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across and beyond the network boundaries.
Discussion and ConclusionsDISCUSSIONDrafting a Living Lab Domain Landscape revealed that :• the LL research community is far more advanced and active in the areas such as “User Co-creation”,
“User Driven Innovation” and “Participatory Design”.• “Usability Analysis” and “Contextual Design” remain proportionally more applied in LL compared to
the overall amount of publications about Open Innovation in general . • Interestingly "Experience Design" seems to emerge quite clearly out of the amount of publications,
unfortunately, we missed it in the survey while it would be good to know whether it is also emerging in terms of LL practice.
CONCLUSIONS• The research outcomes may well be used to help ENoLL to gain insights into LL practice and research
interests with regard to possible future cross border R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across the network and perhaps innovation management (IM) community in general.
• Based on individual Living Lab profiles and aggregated information, internal and external benchmarking may become possible for individual member organisations as well as the network in general.
• Through this study, ENoLL members (living labs) could become aware of each other’s R&D&I interests as well as their expertise revealed by the project practice. ENoLL may organize and target future opportunities with more precision for possible international R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across and beyond the network boundaries.
Marc PallotNottingham University Business School, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]
Piotr Krawczyk*JAMK University of Applied Sciences, 40200 Jyvaskyla, Finland E-mail [email protected]
Anna KivilehtoENoLL Office, Pleinlaan 9, B 1050 Brussels, BelgiumE-mail: [email protected]
Thank You!
ENoLL <-> HORIZON 2020
MATCHMAKING & PITCHING
JAMK University of Applied Sciences
4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013 Manchester (UK) 27-30/8
Anna Kivilehto ENoLL, BelgiumAna Garcia ENoLL, BelgiumGijs van Rijn Amsterdam Economic Board, The NetherlandsAdam Olszewski, Poznan Supercomputing Center, PolandThomas Holzmann, Strascheg Center for Entrepreneurship, GermanyMarc Pallot The University of Nottingham, UKPiotr Krawczyk* JAMK, Finland
MATCHMAKING TEAMENoLL <-> HORIZON 2020 MATCHMAKING & PITCHING
MATCHMAKING TEAM ENoLL <-> HORIZON 2020 MATCHMAKING & PITCHING