1 / 22

Methodology for the Open Living Lab process

Methodology for the Open Living Lab process. O4.1.7 Final version. Bologna 21 st October 2013 Giuseppe Luppino . Link OLL to airLED .

sue
Download Presentation

Methodology for the Open Living Lab process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Methodology for the Open Living Lab process O4.1.7 Final version Bologna 21stOctober 2013 Giuseppe Luppino

  2. Link OLL to airLED • A LIVING LAB is a real life environment in which researchers, developers and users create together new products or services, through an open collaboration which leads to local and global innovation • A Living Lab in airLED • Support pilot implementation • Support policy development

  3. Differentstakeholders for the same OLL The general structure of a Living Lab influences the relationship between stakeholders and also the weights are very different. In particular there are 4 types of subjects which are interested in the creation of an OLL and for different reasons with different involvement of the stakeholders • Utilizer: Utilizers are companies that launch and promote the living lab, in order to develop and test firm products and services. They use the living lab as a strategic tool to collect data on users or user communities of their products or services. • Enabler: Enablers include various public-sector actors, non-governmental organizations, and financiers, such as towns, municipalities, or area-development organisations. Living labs are public-sectors project with the aim at developing a specific region or city area in terms of reducing unemployment or solving social and structural problems. • Provider: Provider-driven emphasize efficiency and firms’ investments. They aim at promoting research and theory development, increasing knowledge creation, and solving problems. The benefits include new researches outputs, practical business solutions to commercialize. • User: User – driven is focused on solving users’ everyday-life problems. These LL are driven by users, who don’t manage the network or its operations.

  4. Types of Open Living Labs • 1 - Utilizer-driven • 2 - Enabler-driven • 3 - Provider-driven • 4 - User-driven • Purpose • Strategic R&D activity with pre-set objectives • Strategy development through action • Operations development through increased knowledge • Problem solving by collaborative accomplishments • Organization • Network forms around an utilizer, who organizes actions for rapid knowledge results • Network forms around a region (regional development) or a funded project (public funding) • Network forms around a provider organization • Network initiated by users lacks formal coordination mechanism • Action • Utilizer guides information collection from the users and promotes knowledge creation that supports the achievement of pre-set goals • Information is collected and used together and knowledge is co-created in the network • Information is collected for immediate or postponed use; new knowledge is based on the information that providers gets from the others • Information is not collected locally and builds upon users’ interests; • Knowledge is utilized in the network to help the user community • Outcomes • Utilizer guides information collection from the users and promotes knowledge creation that supports the achievement of pre-set goals • Guided strategy change into a preferred direction • New knowledge supporting operations development • Solutions to users’ everyday-life problems • Lifespan • Strategic R&D activity with pre-set objectives • Short/Medium/Long • Short/Medium/Long • Long

  5. Links with the otheractivities • Almost all the activities are linked to this methodology

  6. Entry points The complexity of the situation requires to defineclear entry pointswhichconcern • Topics & relatedspecifications • Constitutiveelements of the OLL • Processes & workingmethodologies

  7. Topics & relatedspecifications Specific, thematic interactions among partners & Stakeholders airLED territorial context and related partners interests Logistics & Transport Spatialdevelopmentenvironment & architecture Business and investmentdevelopment

  8. Matrix

  9. Constitutive elements of the OLL • Universities • Public Authorithies • Firms • Users Citizens

  10. airLED Constitutive elements of the OLL Local / Regionallevel Policy focus UE level Technical expertise focus • RDCB • ASG RDCB Managers RDCBMembers KTI IUD Thematicexperts Political Board Partnership

  11. airLED Constitutive elements of the OLL • Universities/ Research • Public Authorithies • Firms • RDCB • ASG • Users Citizens Partnership Need to answerthiscomplexity with work processesmethodologies and clear setup and enrichments of technical expertise

  12. Thematic interactions • Tools • 4.2.7,11,13,14,18,4.3.1,8,9 • 3.2.10-13 Regionalintegratedplans Interactions RDCB Meetings Peer Review • 3.3.12-15 Roadmaps for endorsement • 3.2.9 Transnationalstrategy

  13. RDCB • O3.3.8-11 • 7 meetings in eachregion • Itis up to the single partner to define the channels for stakeholdersinvolvementaswellas the relevantstrategies • ASG supportisneeded • ThematicExperts (TE) are needed • Signature list • Report of the meeting • Possiblyphotos

  14. RDCB Meetings • 3rdRDCB • SQ analysis finalized/presented • Definition of expected results from the Regional development plan (what is the concrete outputs referred to the matrix of topics) • Definition of stakeholders to be involved • 4th RDCB - Initialmilestones of elaboration • Backcastingapproachsuggested • Definition of actors to be involved • Input from SQ analysis output and Peer Review workshops • Actions and Technical studiesneeded for the developmentplan • 6th RDCB - Finalmilestones of elaboration • Backcastingapproachsuggested • Conclusion of the Regionaldevelopmentplan(with ASG written feedback also on reports of RDCB) • Eventualtuinings • Input from pilots and from master class • Definition of steps for endorsement • 7th RDCB - finalisation of developmentplan • Internalapproval • 5th RDCB - Midtermmilestones of elaboration • Backcastingapproachsuggested • Discussion on the developmentplandraft (with ASG written feedback also on reports of RDCB) • Input from GP analysisbased on topicmatrixdrafttechnicalstudies & interim pilottoolsresults TE ASG TE ASG TE

  15. Focus on backcasting Process of moving from the developed scenarios backwards to the present situation of the participants Brain Storming on Constraints Step 1 Consider possible constraints to realise the back-casting skeleton. Possible constraints are listed for each of the stakeholders. ProblemSolving Step 2 How to overcome these constraints? By-Effects Step 3 Consider possible, positive and negative by-effects of their proposals. By-effects are effects that are not intended but could occur as part of the process (spillover / side effects). Pleaseconsider the Backcastingprocessasproposal

  16. Focus on backcasting Process of moving from the developed scenarios backwards to the present situation of the participants Brain Storming on Constraints Step 1 Consider possible constraints to realise the back-casting skeleton. Possible constraints are listed for each of the stakeholders. ProblemSolving Step 2 How to overcome these constraints? By-Effects Step 3 Consider possible, positive and negative by-effects of their proposals. By-effects are effects that are not intended but could occur as part of the process (spillover / side effects). Pleaseconsider the Backcastingprocessasproposal

  17. Peer review workshop • Methodologicalapproach of the meeting • Constitutivephase • Problems focusing phase • Co-building phase of regional integrated polycentric development plan key priorities • Input • SQ analysis • Support of the experts and ASG • Participants • Partners • RDCB Members • ASG Interactive sessions

  18. Masterclass Constitutiveelements • INPUT from externalexperts on: • Examples of airledtoolsapplication (realcases) • Tool 1: Policy makingmodellingtool • Tool 2: Airport city with Imageneering • Tool 3: One stop shop • High levelexpert in airport city • Cases of airportcities • Financingairportcities • BEI, Connecting Europe facility(CEF) • INPUT from ASG (KTI+IRM) • GP Analysis (O4.1.20) • Participation of ThematicExpert from partners • Needed for the transnational workshops Gaininginputs

  19. Transnationalthematic workshops • Outputs: 3.2.8-3.2.1.14 • 2 daysincluding3rd supporting tool workshops; • 3 experts/PP (internal and 2 external) along the thematic pillar discuss the outcome of Master Class and further steps to be taken. • Focus also on finalisation of supporting tools • Constitutiveelements • Thematic Expert from partnerswhoparticipatedat the masterclass • ASG • Partnersworking on the threetools • AirportRegionsConference (ARC) • Three stepsapproach • Workshop 1: O3.1.1 done • Workshop 2: Maincontents of the transnationalstrategy • Workshop 3: Draftfinal of the transnationalstrategy

  20. Transnationalthematicworkshops/2 Possiblestructure airLED pillarswithin the airport city concept Block 1 Plenary session Block 2 Parallel sessions per pillar Logistics & Transport Spatialdevelopmentenvironment & architecture Business and investmentdevelopment Block 3 Plenary session

  21. Alberto Preti apreti@regione.emilia-romagna.it Giuseppe Luppino gluppino@regione.emilia-romagna.it Anna Giarandoni agiarandoni@regione.emilia-romagna.it

More Related