260 likes | 398 Views
Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach. Dimitri Schuurman Bram Lievens Lieven De Marez Pieter Ballon. Overview & Methodology. Literature research Analysis of 9 Living Lab- conceptualizations Construction of modified Living Lab definition
E N D
Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach Dimitri Schuurman Bram Lievens Lieven De Marez Pieter Ballon
Overview & Methodology • Literature research • Analysis of 9 Living Lab-conceptualizations • Construction of modified Living Lab definition • Assess the implications of panel-based approach • Illustration Insightinto the differencesandsimilarities betweenconceptualizationandactual practice in Living Labs
Evolution of Innovation Management Ortt & van der Duin (2008) • Technology push: +/-‘60s • Market pull: +/- ‘70s • No user needs vs. incremental flood • Interactionist approach: +/- ‘80s • Combining both, still in-house • Open innovation: +/- ‘90s- ‘00s • More open process • Cooperation & interaction • Contextual innovation: now • Approach depends on contextual factors • More cyclical & non-linear approach • ‘Innofusion’ & ‘social learning’ usage!
Evolution of Living Labs Variety of practicesunder LL-umbrella: needforclearerconceptualization
Conceptualizingfrompractice • Living Labs as Test andExperimentation Platform • Commercial maturitylowerthan in market & societal pilots • Focus less on technicaltestingthan in field trials & testbeds • Living Labs as open innovation platforms Ballon et al., 2007
Conceptualizingfrompractice (2) Pierson & Lievens(2005),re-used by Shamsi(2008)
Conceptualizing from practice (3) 9 generalICT Living Lab-characteristicsbyFølstad (2008) – bottom-up approach analyzing 32 Living Labs-papers 1 = Research into the usage context; 2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities; 3 = Co-creation with the users; 4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users; 5 = Technical testing of the innovation in a realistic context; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 7 = Experience and experiment in a real-world context; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies; 9 = Large scale user studies.
Conceptualizing from practice (3) 9 generalICT Living Lab-characteristicsbyFølstad (2008) – bottom-up approach analyzing 32 Living Labs-papers 1 = Research into the usage context; 2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities; 3 = Co-creation with the users; 4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users; 5 = Technical testing of the innovation in a realistic context; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 7 = Experience and experment in a real-world context; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies; 9 = Large scale user studies. Only 4 ‘shared’ characteristics! Another indication of the conceptual ambiguity of the Living Lab-concept
Analysis of LL-conceptualizations 2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities; 4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies; 3 = Co-creation with the users; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 7 = Experience and experiment in a real-world context; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies;
Modified consensus definition • A Living Lab-approach consists of medium- or long-term researchco-creatinginnovationswith users in a familiarandreal-world context, takinginto account the ecosystemsurrounding the innovation. • Missing aspect: whereto get your users?
IBBT-iLab.o’s panel-based approach • IBBT: Flemish (virtual) research institute, incubator andinnovationintermediaryfor ICT, fundedbyFlemishgovernment • Mission: IBBT aims to add economic and social value through excellent research and the creation of human capital in the domain of ICT
iLab.o: IBBT’s Living Lab-division A toolbox for any project type: ICON, Living Lab, CIP, FP7, … A toolbox for any project type: ICON, Living Lab, CIP, FP7, …
Addedvalue of panel based-approach • 1) contextualization: through the longitudinal data the panel generates, a permanent ‘contextualization’ is taking place for the surveyed topics • 2) selection: the identification test-users is only a matter of selecting the right profiles out of the panel database. This avoids the time- and budget consuming surveying and recruiting of relevant user profiles. • 3) concretization: a lot of data already present, so only a brief extra intake survey is required • 4) implementation: panel members have ‘opted in’, panel management ensures practical organisation of research activities & device handling, panel manager as SPOC • 5) feedback: all data added with existing panel data to further add to profile building PANEL WITH THEMATIC FOCUS!
Illustration: LeYLab Living Lab • Sept 2010 • 11 industrial partners • IBBT-iLab.o as research partner • Fibre internet connection
LeYLab panel • 115 fibreconnections • 98 households • 43 tablets • 36 mini PC • >200 profiled panel members 32% coursesurfing 35% course SNS 58% course workingwithcomputer/tablet 3% has alreadydevelopedinnovativeapps 10% hasinnovativeideas regarding the Internet 20% is among the first totest innovativeapps
Project CloudFriends(home networkdiagnosticsapp) SotA-research: habits & practices network problems Co-creation session with experts & Lead users Test user co-creation session Post-usage validation 1st iteration CloudFriends-app 2nd iteration CloudFriends-app Initial concept CloudFriends-app
Conclusions • Living Labs as promisinginnovationmethodology, involving the end-user as key stakeholder through co-creation • Still a large variety in definitionsand concrete set-ups of Living Labs • Added-value of a panel-based approach, in practiceespeciallyforentrepeneurs & start-ups
[E]: Dimitri.Schuurman@UGent.be [W]: www.mict.be www.ibbt.be www.leylab.be www.mediatuin.be
Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample
Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context
Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context • Lack of research into the actual usage context • Lack of discovery of unexpected usage or new opportunities
Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context • Lack of research into the actual usage context • Lack of discovery of unexpected usage or new opportunities • Medium- or long term is a given, large scale is not