Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010

BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS
LIVING LABS ROADMAP

2007-2010
RECOMMENDATIONS ON
NETWORKED SYSTEMS FOR OPEN USER-DRIVEN
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION
QUALITY STATUS: OPEN DOCUMENT VERSION: FINAL

ON BEHALF OF THE LIVING LABS PORTFOLIO LEADERSHIP GROUP
ON BEHALF OF THE CORELABS PROJECT
To effectively target the Lisbon agenda, new holistic innovative and powerful innovation
approaches are needed. The approach suggested in this document, is to build systems -
Living Labs - which engage and empower large groups of citizens in open real-world
experimentally driven innovation processes.
The increasing number of people and organisations behind this approach are fully convinced
that the proposed way to empower users in open cross-border collaboration will become a
very strong element in a new European innovation system. The networked system - the
European Network of Living Labs – established and growing in size and maturity, is
dedicated to generate, in large scale, significantly more competitive, valuable and sustainable
products, services, content and societal infrastructures, based on advanced information and
communication technology, ICT.
This document is targeted to become a shared definition, planning, coordination and
marketing tool, to be used and jointly maintained by people and organisations engaged in
building the networked system for sustainable European competitiveness – the European
Network of Living Labs.
All members of the Living Labs Open Innovation Community are welcomed to, submit
changes and amendments in order to make and keep this document as comprehensive and
up-to-date as possible (see “Authors supplement” at the end of document).
Disclaimer: This paper reports the consolidated ideas of many committed individuals but
does not prejudge the opinion of any single contributor or organisation.
LIVING LABS ROADMAP LIVING LABS ROADMAP 2007-2010
WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS ON
SYSTEMS FOR OPEN USER-DRIVEN
STATUS: DRAFT SAVED: 2010-10-08
STATUS: OPEN DOCUMENT VERSION: FINAL
SECT. CONTENT PAGE
1 BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL 4

2 DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES 9
2.1 What is a Living Lab? 9
2.2 Living Labs in industrial perspective 12
2.3 Six views on a Living Lab - The harmonization cube 14
2.4 Experience and Application Research - ISTAG report 20
3 LIVING LABS RESULTS AND NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE 21
3.1 European Innovation in the Context of Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs 21
3.2 Service Creation 21
3.3 Governance 21
3.4 User Involvement 22
3.5 Innovation Outcomes 22
3.6 Network Synergies 22
3.7 Infrastructure 23
3.8 Methods & Tools 28
3.9 Interoperability in different Domains 30
4 ROADMAP ACTIONS AND MILESTONES 32
4.1 Today – Current status of Living Labs 32
4.2 Living Lab Maturity Phases 32
4.3 2007 second half - Portuguese Presidency - ENoLL 2nd wave launch 32
4.4 2008 first half - Slovenian Presidency - ENoLL 3rd wave 33
4.5 2008 second half - French Presidency - Completion of ENoLL launch 33
4.6 2009 first half - Czech Presidency 33
4.7 2009 second half - Swedish Presidency 33
4.8 2010 and beyond 33
5 COLLABORATION AND NETWORKING 34
5.1 The Living Labs Portfolio 34
5.2 From Regional Networks to Global Reach 36
6 STRATEGY AND RECOMMENDATIONS, INVESTMENTS AND BENEFITS 40
6.1 ICT Research and Technology Development (RTD) 40
6.2 Socio-economic research 44
6.3 Research infrastructure 49
6.4 Thematic networks for harmonisation 50
6.5 Application area specific approaches 53
6.6 Regional policy approaches 53
7 CONCLUSIONS 56
8 REFERENCES 57
8.1 Abbreviations and Terminology 57
8.2 Publications 58
8.3 Internet Places 59
Page: 2 (61)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
70-95% of private and public investments in research and development of ICT-based
products and services fail to produce market valid value. One major type of deficiency
observed is that traditional ICT R&D projects are initiated and executed in a closed and/or
artificial laboratory environment with too limited and too late interaction with, and
understanding of, the potential market and its users.
Facebook, Google Earth, Linux, Second Life and Wikipedia are all successful evidence that
it is possible to establish Internet based systems/environments to enable engagement of large
communities of users for joint creation of valuable assets (content, products, services etc).
Industrial bench-marks made, also indicate that large open user communities outperform
very significant in-house industrial efforts, when it comes to produce high quality results
over time.
Clearly, the most recognized systems for open collaborative innovation already instrument
very powerful environments for creation of business valid assets. However, there are several
ways to further develop and improve open user-driven innovation. When improved to
empower innovation in real-world (not virtual) contexts and when based on broad private-
public-person partnerships, PPPP (not single vendor) systems we call them Living Labs.
A European Network of Living Labs, ENoLL, has been established (Nov. 2006) and
comprises (Nov. 2007) 52 Living Labs in eighteen of the twenty five European Union
member states.
This roadmap is a plan of how to build, grow and mature this network in order to become a
strong pillar in a new European innovation system and in particular to reinforce Europe’s
capability to generate competitive products, services, content and societal infrastructure,
based on advanced information and communication technology, ICT.
Recognizing the importance of human free spirit, inclusion and environmental friendliness
for sustainability, this roadmap proposes principles for ENoLL development and maturity in
terms of proposed R&D areas, policy priorities and federation principles.
Page: 3 (61)
1 BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL
70-95% (investigations vary) of private and public investments in research and development
of ICT-based products and services fail to produce business valid results. One major type of
deficiency observed is that traditional ICT R&D projects are initiated and executed in a
closed and/or artificial laboratory environment with too limited and too late interaction with,
and understanding of, the potential market and its users. Today this is virtually a paradox
from the perspective that modern ICT provides powerful communication means for
individuals (e.g. users) to engage, interact and collaborate in large groups over large physical
distances and across organisational borders (we all use the same Internet).
The current ICT Work Programme is focused on strengthening the innovation capabilities in
Europe by developing new information and communication technologies for the society.
However there are also important developments in the ICT environment that stem not from
new technologies but from a new understanding of Open Collaborative Architectures (OCA)
which enable new forms of technology integration and specialisation to support horizontal
collaboration in diverse areas where the innovative knowledge worker creates value through
various ad-hoc and ambient networks for services. Developments in the Web X.0 area shows
that although the technology has remained almost the same for Internet access (with only
some minor incremental updates and penetration growth) the attitude of the user towards the
medium has drastically changed. Web 2.0 is built on established Internet protocols and
broadband access, but the networked innovations tend to be social in nature. Web 2.0
describes the new generation of Internet-based services that allow people to collaborate,
share and manage information with unprecedented ease and scale. This could be turned into
European advantage on a user and application level convergence through research focusing
on deployable OCA and OSA addressing human centric wireless and mobility elements of
European legacy.
This development is leading from a consumer-oriented approach to a wider co-creative
approach where co-creators are facilitated with open source development tools and creative
commons- type IPR sharing principles. Various vertical business sectors have expressed
strong interest to create Open Services Architectures (OSA) in order to develop Service
Integration with open standard architecture principles. This creates convergence in the
service sector and provides process efficiencies. This European level convergence would
enable seamless interoperability not only between industries but also between the public and
private sectors, which constitute the biggest share of service creation in Europe (Media,
Health sector, Transportation, Education and training, e-government services, etc).
A number of the major industrial players and organizations in Europe are creating a Large
Technology Platforms and JTIs, which will serve as the focus point for future European
actions to exploit the innovation sources of virtual collaborative innovation in innovation
networks such as Living Labs. Important members of the Initiative include such companies
as Atos Origin, IBM, Nokia, SAP, Telefonica, Ericsson, Nokia-Siemens Network, Mobile
Research Center Bremen, Luleå Technology community, Waterford Institute of Technology,
Bregenz technology community, Barcelona Technology community, Munich and Leiden
University centric clusters and the European Space Agency to mention few(inclusive list of
the 51 members of the LLs in ENoLL).
We, the members of this Living Lab initiative, would call for special attention to be paid for
these cross technology and cross business collaborative horizontal research needs that are
identified from the 7th Framework Programme.
Page: 4 (61)
The above mentioned approach to Collaborative Working Environments (CWE) and the
consequent developments have already started during the 6th Framework Programme and
notably, from its 5th call, the context of emerging new working environments are being
discussed in the ongoing approved projects. In particular, projects such as Network4Value
emphasised in its conclusions the needs to establish a wide economic and regulatory
initiative of Open European Collaborative Space (OECS) to emphasise in Public Private
Partnerships the potential for European level collaborative services creation by 2013.
The need for a network of large scale demonstrators (read LivingLabs*) to be established for
quicker market scale up has been emphasised in various workshops and conferences
supported by specific CWE projects. The project CoreLabs has focused on the establishment
of ENoLL (European Network of LivingLabs) which was launched during the Finnish
Presidency as a Prime Minister’s initiative to support the European Innovation system. Five
large Integrated Projects from the 6th Framework Programme are demonstrating various
innovations in new working environments for work place efficiency and creativity.
Horizontal instruments such as the OCA Group, headed by Telefonica together with other
key European industries, are defining those Living Lab reference architectures. The project
Clock is preparing the ground for developing an upper level service integration layer, closer
to the user applications, which will support European Industry efforts to excel in
mechanisms for extracting value from global R&D Innovations. The Bainbridge’s project is
looking to regional innovations processes as a source for Collaborative Working
Environments, especially in the area of Public-Private Partnerships and other new
mechanisms to fund innovations in a scalable way with the support of Hampton Court/Aho
Report (following its recommendations for European Innovation system). The Laboranova
integrated project is changing existing technological and social infrastructures for
collaboration and support knowledge workers in sharing, improving, and evaluating ideas
systematically across teams, companies, networks and Living Labs.
All these new technological capabilities converge broadly at Workplace (Dynamic
Workplace, Collaborative Workplace or Ubiq Workplace). This is where the Knowledge
Worker of 21st century is enabled to perform the knowledge work in a productive way.
Given the increasing need to mobilize the “collective intelligence and creativity”
collaborative technologies will be vital – not only for the individual knowledge worker but
for business and the society at large.
This is a classical area of “application-led research” as postulated by ISTAG Paper
“Orientation for Work Programme in FP 7” in June 2006. It needs a high degree of
interdisciplinary (technology, engineering and social sciences) as well as new approaches to
drive the research and innovation process. The ISTAG document is referring to “Innovation
Communities” – a concept tightly connected to the Living Labs – where the Finnish
Presidency has taken the sponsorship to launch a European Network to foster and enhance
innovation in Europe and which is followed by the German presidency, further expanded
through the Portuguese presidency and work under way for the Slovenian and French
presidencies.
Unfortunately the first part of the ICT Work Programme did not reflect this need for
collaborative horizontal elements. The Coordinated Action Clock has been able to
successfully position this discussion in the i2010 working group together with the Industry
Advisory Group for the Service Innovation area (Nokia, IBM, SAP, Atos Origin, etc.).
Page: 5 (61)
Global trend towards open innovation
The emergence of the shift of more intelligence from the core towards the edges is clearly
depicted from the strong new bottom-up business creating new rules for internet and
influence on the network architectures, IPR, regulation requirements and global market
forces.
This is seen in centralized digital media broadcasting moving quickly towards IP-TV and
JOOST-Type of new services and users and user communities becoming producers of new
contents and media service integrators becoming new channels for distribution.
Telephony moving to new IP-based services and even advertisement funded service such as
SKYPE and others .
E-Collaboration has also transformed itself to SKYPE, JOOST and GMAIL-type of
services where add-hoc and virtual capacities of the network is utilized and business models
are meshed with other platform service products.
The web itself has been created into a mega mesh network where new innovation can be
nurtured in many local applications and in different closed & open and ad-hoc networks.
Kazaa and global collaborative platforms such as 2ndlife, Facebook and other self
organizing communities bring quickly new global business logics.
This all creates an opportunity and demands on intelligent terminal development for ever
‘thicker’ client development to fulfil this emergence of intelligence moving to edges and
even peripheries. Moving to personalized mobile x.0 service is not anymore a dream but
reality and mass-service customization is needed for huge potential global market. For
realizing the potential of large numbers of developers in mobile communities a true Personal
AMP has to be created. Mobile web-servers supplying APACHE&PYTHON for mobile
web service creation. Software solution technologies such as LAMP (Linux, Apache,
MySQL, PHP) enabled to mobile terminals will increase this potential.
Growing industrial need for user-driven innovation and

livinglabbing
In an array of industries, producer centred innovation is being eclipsed by user-driven

innovation – the idea generation, concept development, prototyping, and even production of
new products and services is done by users/consumers. These users aren’t just voicing their
needs to companies that are willing to listen; they’re inventing and often building what they
want.
Breakthrough medical-equipment innovations such as the heart-lung machine and the first
automated drug pumps were developed by doctors at the leading edge of practice, not by
firms that manufacture medical equipment. Novel food categories like sports energy drinks
and gels were developed by sports enthusiasts.
ICT enabled service development is benefiting extensively of user-driven innovation.
Excellent examples of that are for example that the most usable and stable Nokia 770 and
Lego Mindstorm applications are developed by user-developer communities.
This process of users’ coming up with products and services is increasingly well
documented, but only few companies are actively trying to take advantage of it. The majority
of companies do not yet exploit these possibilities and these new innovation platforms -
Living Labs - are still “under-used”.
Page: 6 (61)
Industries understanding the benefits of Living Labs
The concept of Living Lab is relevant to the necessities of evaluating e.g. the mass
deployment potential of ICT enabled solutions. Living Labs represent regional innovation
environments focusing on user communities embedded within “real life”. Besides
technological aspects Living Labs allow insight on to the human dimension of technology,
which is of paramount importance for a successful societal deployment of new technologies.
As a consequence of this potential, the Living Lab approach is considered as the natural
candidate especially for the implementation of large scale evaluation, demonstration and
validation activities related to ICT based products and services. From a market and industry
creation perspective Living Labs offer a research and innovation platform which can help
industries to apply user-driven innovation practices. Living labs can enhance economical,
social and cultural systems cross-regionally and cross-nationally.
From the industry perspective there is still a need for clarifying the livinglabbing field of
activities and a necessity to support industry to start and adopt new user-driven innovation
practices. Industry wants to know how to take advantage of these new user-driven innovation
and livinglabbing opportunities in their innovation processes. The demonstration of what
LivingLabs is and what and how it could be used by industry and public sector in their user-
driven innovation process must be seen as the major outcome of this project.
Earlier user- involvement
Growth of testing is valuable, but there is a common need to involve users earlier, before
testing starts, in order to support the early phase of innovation. This will ultimately decrease
innovation costs and increase income. That happens because of higher hit ratio and spending
less on developing bad ideas, and earning more because of getting better ideas.
Combination of these two starting points will be of great value for the business sector.
Within ENoLL the Nordic tradition of early user-driven involvement is an asset and an
advantage that should be developed into a method for user driven-innovation i.e.
livinglabbing.
When mature, a Living Lab has to provide services or instrument assets which add values
both in industry (business relevance) and academy (research). In order to become sustainable
successful, a Living Lab has to establish a valid "business model", including feasible means
to get necessary (financial) resources.
Networked environment
The new ways of developing new products and services calls for a change from a
technocratic paradigm of technical change to a broader system design that reinforces
networked environment and, simultaneously, fosters societal developments. The reason why
knowledge-based activities, such as Living Labs, are particularly prone to foster and sustain
networked environments and societal developments is because they will increasingly rely on
“distributed knowledge bases”, as a systematically coherent set of knowledge, maintained
across an economically and/or socially integrated set of agents and institutions.
Page: 7 (61)
At the European Network of Living Labs level they globally provide critical mass and social
context for the development, testing and dissemination of innovative user-driven/citizen
services and products. The network effect (i.e. Metcalfe's Law) increases benefits
exponentially for the whole when new nodes are linked. Cross fertilization, serendipity and
synchronicity compound with other network externalities and may increase the emergence of
innovations. The European Network of Living Labs responds to local and regional
challenges and opportunities to address global markets and enable collective learning at a
European Level. Further, the network of Living Labs will help to bridge the digital divide by
increasing the absorption capacity of local communities and foster territorial appropriation of
information and communication technologies (ICT) by enterprises, not-for-profit
organizations and local or regional governments.
Potential
Potential is within reach to make European R&D more business valid. However, to achieve
this, advanced R&D is needed to form and integrate suitable methods, ICT and multi-media
solutions, which empowers, at scale, individual users to engage in product and service
development in users real life/work contexts, urban as well as rural, and through open
environments and processes to avoid prejudiced assumptions about who will be the “typical
users” of a certain product or service. Obviously the role of users in Innovation is
increasingly recognized, especially after the seminal work of von Hippel [17].
To be carefully considered:
What will be a success on the market is still elusive and probably because of the increase in
complexity in some sectors (technological development can also reduce complexity) failures
are still more common than successes even in the presence of market validation exercises as
pilots or test markets with a heavy user involvement. Still many of the products that are a
success have not been co-developed at all and are the product of small groups (Apple and
Google products for example…) that introduce the product into the market in a fairly high
state of development in order to reduce third party appropriability.
We may direct our attention to what has changed in Innovation with a few main vectors:
• The increasing value of experimentation in large users groups (March, 2006, Thomke,
…)
• Open Innovation and the need to user a market approach for innovation
• User involvement in different ways and forms depending on the product and especially
true in product platforms and
• The need for societal involvement in Innovation in this new scenario. This probably is
more in line to the understanding of Funding agencies than a higher bet on co-
development (true in some sectors like open source but completely absent in many
others).
See also the comprehensive “Aho-group report” [01] on how to reinforce EU research and
innovation performance.
Page: 8 (61)
2 DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES
2.1 What is a Living Lab?

A Living Lab is a system enabling people, users/buyers of services and products, to take
active roles as contributors and co-creators in the research, development and innovation
process.
A Living Lab has one main role, and this is to engage and empower users to participate in
the generation of valuable and sustainable assets towards objectives set-up by its partners
and customers.
Primarily, a Living Lab should have capability to;
• Form an appropriate organisation and partnership
• Motivate and empower large scale user engagement
• Establish adequate tools and infrastructure
• Form and execute case-dependent processes and manage IPR
• Disseminate a wide variety of results
As of today (2007/2008), even the most advanced Living Labs are rather immature. There is
a significant need for R&D to gain knowledge how to manage the Living Labs and the
significant complexity and flexibility which is inherent to innovation in general and with
engaging users (which can not be easily controlled) in particular.
Living Labs have started to exchange experiences and best practises such as within the
European Network of Living Lab, www.openlivinglabs.eu. However, very little operational
and practical collaboration has been established so far. Obvious and expected synergies and
expected values with a Living Lab network are of course the opportunities from sharing
knowledge and resources. Other very important synergies from operating as a network,
(with extensions into different markets and cultures) are to be able to engage a larger and
more diversified community of users and the opportunity to understand similarities and
differences between users and customers in different marketplaces.
It is already clearly recognised that these fundamental network efficiencies in particular
attractive to global industry. Hence, when these network capabilities are in place and an
appropriate inter-network business model is agreed, it will contribute significantly to the
sustainability of the individual Living Labs being contributors to the network efficiency.
Living Labs provide contextualized experimentation grounds where predefinition of
technology stacks are avoided. Instead RTD is use case driven addressing real life problems.
The solving responses of technological solutions can be used immediately as reference
implementations for roll-out purposes. The normal set up currently makes it necessary to
acquire a reference customer when the first release of a new product is launched (ramp up
phase). This cause a delay in future market penetration as many of the new customers ask for
reference implementations before they buy in. Such a reference implementation comes for
free as the development is embedded in the real life Living Lab.
Page: 9 (61)
Another aspect of business software solution roll out is the training and education of masses
of end users for new products. The introduction of new services and products requires a
scalable and target group oriented set up efficiently transferring the know how on how to
implement, customize, maintain and use the software and technologies. The training material
in use should address the most important aspects based on derived obstacles that end users
experience when using the solutions. Living Labs avoid the wrong design of training and
education material through its close end user engagement. The development of
documentation is another example where close end user engagement provides measurable
added value.
Experimentation on specific topics gain certain benefits and efficiencies from a “Rotating
view” [2] of different stakeholders, e.g. on standardization topics. The different perspectives
of various role players will enable RTD staff to develop a holistic solution comprising the
input from various research disciplines. This of course requires an interdisciplinary research
consortium.
In certain research areas a multi-stakeholder partnerships are simply a must. Recent
technology trends include the internet of services. It implies to deliver integrated services
with fragmented service providers in the background (e.g. in the case of travel bookings).
End users will not recognize anymore with how many and with whom they actually interact
but will only be confronted with an integrated service package. To allow smooth delivery of
such a package open standards, open innovation and flexible consortia are essential.
Certainly Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) management will become also more important in
such an environment.
IPR management generally needs to be adapted. Currently this is a tricky issue. Certain
commercial interests need to be respected to allow for industry leaders to participate and one
has to carefully deal with joint intellectual property between LL partners.
2.1.1 KEY PRINCIPLES FOR LIVING LAB OPERATIONS (“CORES”)
The general mission of a Living Lab, and of ENoLL, is to be a supreme environment for
innovation of market valid ICT based products, services, contents and societal
infrastructures. Its most important role is to facilitate innovation based on large scale
collaboration between users and business stakeholders.
The principles of Living Lab operations are Continuity, Openness, Realism, Empowerment
of users and Spontaneity, CORES:
Continuity – Creativity is strengthened by a multitude of views originating from broad
experience and cross-border collaboration. Experiences are gained and views are broadened
over time. Good cross-border collaboration is built on trust and building trust between
people from different backgrounds and work/life cultures take time. Business opportunities
can only be finally validated through real market experiments. Capability to plan and run
such experiments is built on practical experience, carried by people working, in continuity
over time, in the Living Lab environment. Users and partners build trust and context unique
knowledge over series projects, innovation cases and business experiments.
Openness – The innovation processes must be as open as possible. This is essential for
gathering of many perspectives and to bring enough power to achieve rapid progress.
Further, since innovation is about new ways/things generating values for its users/customers,
it is inherently difficulty foresee all potential beneficiaries. There are numerous examples
where a particular product concept was anticipated to have a certain usage scenario and
market but when openly introduced to the market, the strongest pick-up was from
unexpected category of users for an unexpected type of usage.
Page: 10 (61)
Realism - Realistic behaviour of users and stake-holders is necessary in order to generate

results which are valid for real (realistic) markets. A Living Lab must be experienced by its
users and stake-holders as a “natural environment” – today or in the near future. The focus
on innovation in real-life/work environment is also key factor which differentiates Living
Labs mode of operations from many other types of open environments for co-creation (such
as Google Earth, Second Life etc)
Empowerment of users (see definition of “users” in section 8) – The engagement of users is
fundamental in order to bring innovation process in a direction, based on user needs and
desires. However, in order to get the full effect from users engagement it is not sufficient to
use them as “guinea pigs“ for testing. Living Labs efficiency is based on the creative power
of significant user communities and the most important enabler of user power is obviously to
empower and motivate users to engage – not only in one project or case but in continuity
over time. Experience show users having wide experience from various innovation processes
are more effective as innovators.
Spontaneity - In order to succeed with new products and services, it is not enough to offer
more and better professional/serious functionality, but also ones that inspire usage, meet
personal desires and fit and contribute to social and societal needs. This make innovations
meeting this complexity of needs and desires, it is not enough to explore and address users
early outspoken needs in a initially context, assumed to be the most important. It is also very
important to have the ability to detect, aggregate and analyze spontaneous user’s reactions
and ideas over time, along a product/service full lifecycle. This means that Living Labs
methods and tools must enable innovation in continuity, not only innovations at events, in
single projects or campaigns. Note again that this need applies not only to end users, but to
all kinds of users in all relevant roles/organisations along the product/service value-chain (
“users” definition in section 8).
2.1.2 LIVING LAB TYPES
Though all Living Labs have a main role to facilitate user engagement in innovation, Living
Labs appear and emerge in great variation. Some Living Labs have geographical or
demographic focus like rural or urban areas or young or elderly people. Other Living Labs
are closely connected to a branch or industrial value chain such as healthcare or
“automotive”. Yet another category focuses on a particular type of person-centric contexts
such as “being mobile” or “daily private life”. Analysis of existing and emerging Living
Labs is in progress as is debate whether there is a need for, and a feasible way to, divide or
map Living Labs into different categories and how such a “classification or categorization
scheme” should look like.
Page: 11 (61)
2.2 Living Labs in industrial perspective
LL IN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE - SAP
SAP’s strategy in particular in the SME (Small and Mid-size Enterprise) market includes the
ambitious goal to grow the current customer base of more than 43.000 to about 100.000 by
2010. Such objectives can only be achieved in a strong partner network that allows for
collaborative innovation. Currently more than 3850 official partners cooperate with SAP.
The concept SAP is following on the software engineering of future products is based on a
collaborative network of Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that provide add-on
functionality on a service oriented Business Process Platform. It is a simple fact that no
single vendor can provide all of the innovation or the entire solution portfolio required by a
company to run its business. Nor can a single vendor meet these needs as quickly as
companies demand today. Success requires an ecosystem approach that puts the customer
and its end users at the center and leverages the expertise of a network of vendors – and
promotes a new level of collaboration between them for accelerated innovation and delivery
of end-to-end solutions.
The huge diversity of end users is reflected in the variety and complexity of today’s business
software solution portfolio. Cultural and regional related requirements, legislation on country
level or industry specific vertical needs lead to a whole set of different solutions. To develop
such solutions a detailed and precise understanding of local end-user needs is most
important. Considering for instance human computer interaction it is questionable whether it
is possible to follow a unified User Interface strategy for all kinds of business software.
Instead one can think of ways to rather apply unified methodologies which could be derived
from action research in Living Labs that extracts e.g. best practices of end user interaction.
Such standardized and proven methodologies could lead to more efficiency.
Living Labs are environments that could offer easy access to an ecosystem of driving
industry partners and end user communities going beyond the current possibilities. The
networking aspect of bringing together the right partners with the required skills and
expertise with motivated end users that are ready for driving change is of big importance for
the ultimate success of future product and service delivery. End users that are part of a LL
community are committed to experimentation, open for change and innovation. Often
today’s daily business is characterized by a certain resistance on customer and end user side
to adopt newest technologies, to reengineer business processes etc.
The mission of SAP’s participation in publicly funded research projects includes
investigation into new markets either arising from incremental product and service
development that is supplementing existing solutions in established regions and industries or
that are originating from trends that are not related to existing solutions. In any case
established global players in industry are under pressure to grow their business on a global
scale with localized solutions.
Experience:
The Living Labs are mega testing grounds, involving huge swaths of target audiences. For
example, an eGovernment project will be trialled within a whole community with all the
necessary technologies, products and services. This provides for a stable environment and a
trusted end-user community over a long period.
Page: 12 (61)
In practice, SAP Research is thus able to explore and understand business and technology
related pain points from end to end in potential future and already established markets. This
in itself helps SAP Research to achieve higher relevance for its research undertakings and to
explore new market conditions at an earliest stage. Additional benefit is the maximum
closeness to real environments, actually the immersion in the real world.
SAP Research centres in Germany, Switzerland and the Republic of South Africa are
pioneering the Living Labs concepts within SAP. Their activities focus on such
important areas as manufacturing and retail. What they have in common is the
motivation to work as closely as possible to the real world, with real customers in
real settings. Thus SAP Research shortens the way from the prototype to the actual
next-generation software product. Ref [10].
LL IN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE - NOKIA
Nokia has a strategy to focus in different levels to open collaborative innovation with
external organizations and innovative individuals.
First level: Nokia Beta Labs are engaging Nokia users into co-creation of new services and
experiences. It provides a public portal for software and services prior to commercialisation
of new products and services. It provides open architectures and open source tools to
external developers and brings direct virtual feedback to innovation communities and Nokia
R&D Units. It functions globally. It provides value for users: early access, opportunity to
contribute and value for Nokia: early market feedback, fail fast, scale fast.
Second levels: Nokia Lab Lets and internal Alfa- and Beta Labs.
Nokia Lab Lets are physical open labs residing currently in six University campuses. These
Labs concentrate into specific innovation areas of those University Core Competencies and
objectives is to nurture open innovation with best academics in research. Nokia Alfa and
Beta Labs are labs to link new Innovations to business strategies and create a process to open
these new Innovations for targeted collaboration with external partners and user
communities. This work is addressing both user centric designs and close to market
ecosystems.
Third level: Living Labs
Living labs are for open user driven innovation validation and development environments,
which are managed by external and in many cases by public-private consortiums to create
market like conditions to test also emergent markets for new services and products. Nokia is
not directly investing into them but creates strategic alliances with them and acts as a client
for their services. Such Living Labs close to Nokia are at the MIT, Boston/Cambridge
Campus, Selected ENoLL sites, Village LivingLabs in developing countries and in Mega
cities of China.
Example:
For realizing the potential of large numbers of developers in mobile communities a true
Personal AMP has to be created. Mobile web-servers supplying APACHE&PYTHON for
mobile web service creation. Software solution technologies such as LAMP (Linux, Apache,
MySQL, PHP) enabled to mobile terminals will increase this potential.
Page: 13 (61)
Individual Living Labs can be environments for this development but enabling Living Lab
Networks to function concurrently can Europe match the challenges of other global regions
dominating in virtual collaborative open innovation. Living lab network has taken such
domain specific R&D challenges to its players as Ambient Assisted living for ICT enhanced
services for aging population, Mobile Smart Home platforms for energy efficiency by
citizens, Radio and satellite technologies to renew urban public transportation challenges,
Mobile interactive TV for citizen centric consumer models, personalized life management
services and related functional service architectures etc
Experience:
Nokia has been actively working on LivingLabs since 2001 when it started developing its
own open innovation work space at Karaportti Finland (first Corporate Living Lab). Between
2003 towards today Nokia has participated in several Living Lab related research projects
that come close to user driven innovation areas. Such projects are Mobilife (IP coordinated
by Nokia), Intelcities (IP between Cities on e-gov.), Mosaic, C&R, Clock, BrainBridges,
Laboranova, Tell-Me, CoreLabs and several EU funded studies. Besides this several national
and Nordic LL projects are underway currently. Nokia also hosts and participates in several
international, European (ENoLL Chair), Nordic and national Living Lab Consortiums or
Associations (Chair in DIMES/LITE-OPEN). After the split of Nokia and Nokia-Siemens-
Networks, NSN, NSN has created its independent strategy towards Living Labs. Nokia and
NSN continue in collaboration of Living Lab R&D.
2.3 Six views on a Living Lab - The harmonization cube

In order to define a shared reference towards a harmonization of methods and tools for use in
a European Network of Living Labs an interoperability cube for harmonizing Living Labs
has been developed (Mulder, Fahy, Hribernik, Velthausz, Feuerstein, et al., 2007). The
interoperability cube (Figure 01) builds on the assumption that the focus on synergies and
those elements that Living Labs want to exchange with each other forms an appropriate basis
for the harmonization of methods and tools. The cube identifies these exchange possibilities
and explicitly defines interoperability elements from organizational, technical and contextual
perspectives in which different standards are relevant.
Figure 01 Living Labs Harmonization Cube
Page: 14 (61)
The process of setting up refers to the hardest work in setting up and running a Living Lab.
Sustainability comes after this, when a Living Lab is kept operational and becomes
permanent, or put differently: self-sustainable. A next step could be that all practices are
scalable, useful in other contexts, more extended etc. As said before, it is obvious that not all
components of the standardization framework need necessarily be interoperable from
organizational, technical or contextual points of view. Evaluations within Living Labs are
usually done in a real world context and this includes some complications such as the
contexts influence on the evaluation results. Standardization is imperative in order to support
seamless collaboration in each of these dimensions. The more elements that match, the better
Living Labs are harmonised. Best practices, lessons learned and other topics that were
wishful to be exchanged could be clustered in the following topics: user involvement, service
creation, infrastructure, governance, innovation outcomes, and methods & tools. Besides
dealing with harmonization of methods and tools, the cube can be used as a way to structure
and access the repository and other online resources resulting from the CoreLabs project. For
that reason, we propose the topics included on the sides of the cube to be focus of ENoLL
and the open innovation community. Maybe even a reason for a Living Lab to become part
of ENoLL or member of the Open Innovation Community. The six sides of the cubes are
described below.
USER INVOLVEMENT
User involvement is one of the key elements of a Living Lab, and as such should be a focal
point of mature Living Labs. In creating usable systems it is generally accepted that they
should be designed according to an iterative approach, and that user involvement is crucial,
see e.g., Mulder (2004). The focus is on finding out what the relevant experiences, methods,
tools that Living Labs benefit from are. Users are important to define context-aware services,
think for example of cultural differences. Organisational issues include questions like How
to organize user involvement? How to find the right users? What about the validity? How to
motivate the users? From a technological point of view: How to get access to large user
groups? How to analyse large amounts of data? In order to enable scalability, the use of grid
technology can be seen as a possible solution, as the volume of data generated within the
Living Lab could become extremely large. Analysing social context data, application usage
data and user experience data collected in real-life settings presents new challenges - it’s not
clear a priori which data is relevant. Therefore, new analysis and reporting modules might be
needed along with scalable, flexible storage and computing resources to cope with large
amount.
Targeting very large user communities has some significant implications as listed in the table
below:
Table 01: Implications from targeting very large user communities.
Layer of Analysis From To Implications and requirements

Conspicuous Invisible Embedding ICT infrastructures
objects infrastructure in urban daily life, fostering
human-centered systems
Infrastructure/access
Fixed access Roaming Competitive mobile services
and improved regulatory
framework for increased
Page: 15 (61)
individual participation
One-way On-line Specific knowledge of
distribution of collaboration institutional and local contexts
information and in order to help developing
participation interactive contents
Content/ services
Web Networked New competences in content
functionalities Activities and services development,
enhancing user activities and
networks
Technology Mobilization Mobilizing “change agents” to
supply of users foster communities of practice
(CoP) and user involvement
Human and social
Context Standards Inter- Building individual and social
operability competences through
knowledge-based adaptive
human centred environments
SERVICE CREATION
Service creation with relevance to the Living Labs describes the value added components
that Living Labs can bring to innovation and validation. ‘Value-added’ implies we are
‘bringing something new and needed to the table’. Historically, the development of Living
Labs has been stimulated by the cross-regional need to improve innovation and
competitiveness. Service creation within ENoLL should have pan-European relevance as
opposed to that national or regional relevance. The resultant objectives of such an
environment provide us with three underlying categories of required services (Ballon,
Pierson, & Delaere, 2005): services supporting collaborative innovation, services supporting
validation and demonstration, and services specific to stakeholder requirements. On a more
operational level of Living Labs and ENoLL, three types of horizontal services structure the
service matrix (Ballon et al, 2005): technical services – communication, collaboration,
demonstration, prototyping, validation, product deployment etc., customer services –
innovation, idea generation, community services, training, specific service needs, business
support, market customisation, and thirdly, intra-network services (within ENoLL) –
governance, management, training.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Within this context, a simple definition of infrastructure can be given as the basic facilities,
services, and installations, or underlying framework or features required for the operation of
a Living Lab. In order to harmonise the infrastructures used and/or developed in the different
Living Labs, infrastructures can be categorised by their use during the entire life cycle of the
Living Lab.
The first set of criteria determines which infrastructures are chosen to be used at the
establishment of the Living Lab. Infrastructures will be chosen depending on the
environment in which the Living Lab is to be deployed and the objectives which are to be
achieved. The second category includes criteria defining which infrastructures are candidates
to achieve the Living Labs’ self-sustainability.
Page: 16 (61)
The key ones in each Living Lab will be shared within the network. The third set of criteria
will determine infrastructures are more apt to evolve and adapt than others. These are the
ones that will be considered with a higher level of scalability. Central to this categorisation is
to describe the ‘evolution’ performed in the different infrastructures used in the
establishment of the Living Lab in order to achieve sustainability or in order to be scalable.
This means that the most important added value to be detailed in the scalability and
sustainability phases is the transformation or improvement of the infrastructures established
in the first phase (setup). The cross-cutting categorisation is made in terms of the use of
infrastructure. The aim is to describe the use of infrastructures in each of the three phases of
life of a Living Lab, from three different perspectives.
The organisational perspective describes the infrastructures used in each Living Lab with the
purpose of supporting the organisation of the Living Lab. The contextual perspective
describes the infrastructures used in each Living Lab in the context of the Living Lab.
Finally, the technological perspective describes the infrastructures used in each Living Lab
as the technology backbone of the Living Lab.
Some Living Lab infrastructures might be considered in the three perspectives defined,
however it is foreseen that some others may be dedicated to a subset. Again, it is not so
important to mention the infrastructure used, but the real added value is mentioning the
different important aspects of the use of each infrastructure in these perspectives.
GOVERNANCE
The governance structure of a Living Lab describes the way it is organised and managed at
different levels such as the operational or strategic ones. These (organisational, contextual or
technological) aspects are related to the life cycle of the Living Lab. The strategic level deals
with issues like: the way Intellectual Property Rights and exploitation of results are dealt
with; the way stakeholders are involved (financial contributions, commitment, responsibility,
influence), financing: public-private-partnership, commercial; ownership of the Living Lab,
i.e. its services, infrastructure, and the responsible entity for Living Lab (dedicated
organisation or consortium); the management structure, e.g. director, steering board,
(technical) program committee, user committee; driver and nature of the Living Lab, e.g.
community-driven, research driven, business/industry driven, technology driven,
open/closeness: sharing resources/network; Living Lab development: consortium dynamics
(e.g. additional partners, user groups), subsidy/funding policy and the definition and
adjustment of the agenda. The operational level includes aspects like: working practices for
the day to day management; execution & monitoring of the living lab goals regarding the
synergy, quality and progress monitoring, internal communication; the way new software
and services are introduced and validated, responsibilities and liabilities; the definition of
user group/ awareness of being part of Living Lab; dissemination and external
communication: national and international consolidation; the way projects are organized and
funded.
INNOVATION OUTCOMES
Per Eriksson, Director at the Swedish Agency for Innovation systems stated ‘research is
making knowledge out of money – innovation is making money out of knowledge.’ This
implies a relation between research and innovation. The problem is that the processes of
research and innovation don’t simply appear automatically.
Page: 17 (61)
Current research presents a view of a sociological perspective of innovation and a change

from a linear process — from research to innovation — to a user centric approach where
technological research and sociological aspects are equally addressed. Innovation is the
process by which new ideas are put into practice and can be seen as a learning/knowledge
process within a community. Independent of innovation type, a Living Lab needs to be set up
from an organisational point of view to guarantee specific Innovation Outcomes.
One of the major factors is the involvement of qualified personnel to guide and assist the
innovation process. Additionally, the Living Lab should be able to involve all necessary
stakeholders in the innovation chain, specifically in the area of user centricity and user
knowledge. As such institutions are scarce [1] this can be identified as a primary focus of
ENoLL synergy.
From a contextual point of view, considerations regarding Living Labs’ strategic market
position need to be taken into account. This can be guided by the consideration which is the
target market for innovation outcomes – examples are creating value for industry, specific
industry sectors, SMEs, society, etc. The degree of flexibility the Living Lab can handle with
regards to these target markets also signify its scalability in this area. Here, synergies can be
created utilising the ENoLL network effect to expand or focus innovation contextuality.
Technological systems, mainly ICT, need to be set up to facilitate the innovation processes.
These necessarily support interaction and communication which empower creativity. These
technologies can range from simple conferencing tools via telepresence to virtual, game-like
environments. Virtual marketplaces can be employed for example for the brokerage of ideas
and patents. Organisationally speaking, a suitable approach to IPR must be adopted to
guarantee the financial sustainability of the Living Lab’s innovation outcomes. The outcome,
a successful innovation, depends on the input given in the beginning of the innovation
process, the idea. This early phase of innovation processes is also called Ideation. Ideation is
the process of forming and relating ideas. It is described to be the process of discovering
what to make, for whom, understand why to make it and define the success attributes
including the development of insights for answering these strategic questions [4]. This
definition shows the relevance of the early-stage of the innovation process for the product.
The knowledge regarding the product and its features/definitions may be limited in the early
phase but the product definition is strongly influenced in this period. During this phase it is
easy and inexpensive to change the product and product features meanwhile it gets more
expensive the later changes — during the phase of development and production — are done.
From a contextual point of view, an optimal degree of interaction is necessary for the Living
Lab to sustainably produce innovations [1]. This also extends to the technologies employed
to facilitate such interaction.
METHODS AND TOOLS
The CoreLabs project has investigated methods and tools for Living Labs and established a
respective taxonomy. The current Living Labs are using a diversity of technologies,
infrastructures and applications and some host specialist technology providers and research
institutes. Best Practices have been analyzed in order to ensure interoperability by either
defining the use of de-facto standards or suggesting extensions to existing ones where
applicable. The methods & tools category within the interoperability cube describes different
methods and tools used within the existing European Living Lab at all stages.
Page: 18 (61)
Integration of the project in the Living Lab infrastructure. A full Living Lab service offering
not only requires product and service development and evaluation methodologies but also a
mechanism for the integration of the customers’ product or service into a Living Lab to
provide it to the users. The efficient, transparent and smooth integration accomplished by the
Living Lab provider is the key for trust and convenience of the customer. It also can work as
a first product/service testing depending on the level of development (market launch testing).
Co-creation. The core service of the Living Lab is to facilitate the co-creation of a product,
service or application development. This co-creative product development process can be
decomposed into four phases: Product Idea, Product Concept, Product Development, and
Market Launch. The methods are divided into traditional market research methods and
internet based methods allocated to the process phase they are most appropriate.
Data preparation. To fulfil the customers’ expectations regarding the results and to reduce
the complexity of the evaluated data, the Living Lab provider offers a standardised data
preparation. The great advantage of the standardisation is the comparability with the results
within other Living Labs in the network and the confirmation of the expected output in the
run-up to the usage of the Living Labs.
Figure 02 below shows how these all map into a harmonization cube. a first attempt to
communicate the essentials of a Living Labs including applications. The Harmonization
Cube illustrates synergies between Living Labs that can be exploited. The interoperability
cube as well as the Corelabs taxonomy and repository for methods and tools enable the
harmonization of methods and tools in the European Network of Living Labs, i.e., in
multiple domains and across several living labs and hence facilitating a common ground for
sharing.
Page: 19 (61)
Figure 02 Six sides of the harmonization cube
2.4 Experience and Application Research - ISTAG report

One key to a living labs approach is what might broadly be termed user involvement in
iterative development of new systems and also user-centred design. In addition, the ISTAG
report (ref [08]) on Experience and Application Research (EAR) “Involving users in the
development of ambient intelligence” defines stages for science and technology development
(or centres), feasibility and usability testing (or centres), demonstration and evaluation
testing (or centres) and field trials, in order to support the real involvement of real users in
design, starting from the identification and incorporation of their needs within the
development. The EAR approach, or at least what it indicates has been regarded as good
practice in human factors and user-centred design for a number of years.
Page: 20 (61)
3 LIVING LABS RESULTS AND NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE
3.1 European Innovation in the Context of Lisbon Strategy for

Growth and Jobs
Results from workshop Brussels, 16 Oct 2007:

Topic:
What can stakeholders do to achieve a culture for user-driven open innovation, from a
structural, social, policy perspective?
Prioritized results:
• Establish a Living Lab Innovation Award
• Involvement of different people generates different solutions
• A common cooperation workspace for all stake-holders is important
• We should not talk about stake holders, we should talk about individuals and their
communities
• Social perspective: offer infrastructure and tools to young people (in schools)
• We need models
• Link to concrete sustainability goals
• Structural perspective: investments in infrastructures
• Invest in networks and clusters
• Engineers should be educated so as to take into account users in their work (sociology,
user centred design etc)
3.2 Service Creation
Results from workshop - Brussels, 16 Oct 2007:

Topic:
The most urgently needed services for SMEs & Public Sector and indicate for each service
how ENoLL can stimulate development.
Results prioritized:
• Access to expertise
• Tools to build and maintain networks
• Collaborative tools
• Publish on Living Lab website opportunities for SMEs to participate in EU pilots
• Get an ambassador for ENoLL at European level
3.3 Governance
Results from workshop - Brussels, 16 Oct 2007:

Topic:
What type of governance body will ensure financial sustainability, participation and
effectiveness in decision making?
Page: 21 (61)
Results prioritized:
• Cohesion model: network agreement between participants for funding
• Fee based association of ENOLL
• Participation should be open for both individual Living Labs and groups of Living Labs
• A newly funded ENoLL Association financed from membership fees offering networking
services & platforms
• Participant’s contributions
3.4 User Involvement
Introduction
An interesting point is made in “Wikinomics” by Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams
when talking about the sustainability of systems established to support co-creation and co-
ownership: “One could envision a “digital-age co-op” with peer-rating systems that
dynamically apportion shares to contributors based on the community’s assessment of the
value added by individual contributors. Annual profits from sales and services could then be
distributed across the community of contributors. Whatever the precise arrangement, it’s
clear that the future of peer production lies in hybrid models where participants share and
appropriate at the same time”.  ref. [08] page 283
Workshop questions:
• How to drive from User Involvement to User engagement? (From users as passive objects
to become users as designers, creators, and producers and even to become micro
entrepreneurs?)
• What are the challenges of user involvement? (Over exploitation, feedback mechanisms,
high failure rates etc?)
• How to improve user sampling and representative ness? (From face validity to content
validity and process validity?)
3.5 Innovation Outcomes

Workshop questions:
• IPR questions and levels of openness?
• What are the living lab service outcomes in relation to paying customers?
• Which internal processes are critical for high customer satisfaction?
3.6 Network Synergies

Workshop questions:
• What are the key User community management issues? (cross sites, cross country, cross
border virtually, cross Europe/globally)
• Which kind of Public-Private-Citizens partnership models are tested in Living Labs?
(Roles of different PPC actors like: universities, SMEs, public, citizens etc.)?
• How to collaboratively enhance market creation within ENoLL community? How to
support innovation service provider (SMEs etc.) networking in Europe?
Page: 22 (61)
3.7 Infrastructure
Introduction
There is a broad consensus about the significance of broadband penetration for inclusive
development and territorial competitiveness. There is also growing evidence of the economic
benefits of broadband deployment, namely on employment, the number of businesses
overall, and businesses in IT-intensive sectors. OAN may respond to this challenge as an
general purpose infrastructure and a open and neutral communication media fostering a
whole new range of innovative services for the Living Labs.
Related to Living Labs, infrastructure issues can be divided in several different categories,
depending on the different “roles” that the infrastructure may have:
• Infrastructure being created as a result of Living Lab processes.
This means infrastructure in the role of being the target for user-driven creation, such as
specifically targeted urban/rural living/societal areas (of buildings, roads, green-areas etc)
(example Helsinki/Arabienranta LL), the “Intelligent Road” of infrastructures supporting
inter-vehicle communication (example OAN, Botnia LL) and the community owned
wireless mesh network (Homokhat Rural Living Lab/Hungary).
• Infrastructure supporting Living Lab cross-border collaboration, tools and methods.
This means infrastructure in the role to enable the digital communication needed to
appropriately support Living Lab tools and methods based on cross-border
communication with/between groups of distributed users and other Living Lab stake-
holders.
• Infrastructure for networking and collaboration between several Living Labs.
Infrastructure in the role of enabling several Living Labs to exchange information and
operate together, with purpose to offer more competitive and advanced services for user-
driven research, development and innovation.
When considering these categories and when looking for the elements that make up a
successful Living Lab, it is fair to acknowledge that its solution is not a purely technical one.
Indeed, the concept of harmonising and networking Living Labs can be interpreted on four
levels– people, organisation, application and infrastructure:
• People - Professional network of Living Labs experts
• Organisation - Organisational and contractual structures implemented, set of
common methodologies employed
• Applications/Collaborative - Common collaborative architecture supporting co-
creation processes (integrating all stakeholders)
• Infrastructure - Harmonised test bed and network infrastructure
For the purpose of this section only the enabling levels of applications and infrastructure will
be considered as illustrated in Figure 1.
Page: 23 (61)
Figure 1 Technologically relevant layers
In looking to the infrastructural requirements for the ENoLL, input from the CoreLabs
Deliverable 3.1 [7] identified a number of technological requirements that should be taken
into consideration for the creation of a sustainable collaborative environment.
In architectural terms, this encompasses several different technological planes, such as the
service plane, the application plane and the communications plane. These requirements will
form the basis for a European network of Living Labs. Such requirements can be summated
as follows:
Infrastructure for networking and collaboration between several Living Labs.
Infrastructure in the role of enabling several Living Labs to exchange information and
operate together, with purpose to offer more competitive and advanced services for user-
driven research, development and innovation. This will require communication infrastructure
the most basic of all the requirements – without a means of communication, there would be
no collaboration. Although it might seem to be a requirement that is realized via the other
requirements, it’s enabling applications such as: speech, video, email provide a vital piece of
orchestration for the entire infrastructure and its objectives.
End-to-end connectivity infrastructure is the means to provide a seamless channel of
communication between actors within the collaborative environment.
Infrastructure supporting Living Lab cross-border collaboration, tools and methods.

This means infrastructure in the role to enable the digital communication needed to
appropriately support Living Lab tools and methods based on cross-border communication
with/between groups of distributed users and other Living Lab stake-holders. Presence is an
important enabling technology for collaboration since it allows a partner to determine the
status of other entities, and their availability for collaboration and communication. More
sophisticated presence mechanisms can even give status information regarding their
whereabouts and allow seamless ways of communicating with them (e.g. automatically
routing communications to the closest station of the user). Presence also refers to the
discovery of suitable services for re-use and new service composition across an architecture.
Since the ENoLL wishes to lower the threshold of communication as much as possible
within a collaborative environment, the use of standard protocols has to be encouraged to
allow interoperability across potentially heterogeneous platforms. A guarantee of
interoperability is difficult to make, due to the proliferation of standards and technology
platforms. In an environment such as the Living Lab, interoperability across applications,
networks and devices needs to be supported. The use of open standards will endeavour to
provide common interfaces that enable interoperability.
Page: 24 (61)
As an environment that advertises its open nature, a Living Lab must prove that it is
accessible to all actors. The eMobility forum discusses the vision of “access anywhere, any
time” – this could really be extended to “access anywhere, any time, any device, any ability”.
Applications will be available across all platforms, content will have a guaranteed Quality of
Service irrespective of bandwidth or device, any actor – technologically agnostic, physically
or mentally disabled, of diverse cultures or language, of any economic background – will be
able to access the network via a wider selection of multi-modal interfaces and devices and
network connectivity will be guaranteed and seamless.
Security considerations for the collaboration and sharing of information should also be
evaluated. Such considerations encompass unauthorized access, replication, or modification
of information as well as issues arising from potential alteration of data by unauthorized
third parties. User centric security is a consideration in a Living Lab and encompasses issues
such as trust between parties and privacy of user information.
Infrastructure being created as a result of Living Lab processes.

This means infrastructure in the role of being the target for user-driven creation, such as
specifically targeted urban/rural living/societal areas (of buildings, roads, green-areas etc)
(example Helsinki/Arabienranta LL) or the “Intelligent Road” of infrastructures supporting
inter-vehicle communication (example Botnia LL). As such the ENoLL enables a shared
space for information and knowledge sharing. Support for the discovery, sharing, creation
and modification of knowledge within the collaboration process must be provided.
Knowledge interfaces specific to the information that is shared across the network need to
implemented, an example of such an interface might be the use of HL7 in e-Health
applications. Ontologies, semantic descriptions and folksonomies can be applied across
resources to enable seamless integration of all forms of knowledge. The proliferation of
“social” technologies adds another dimension to knowledge sharing with applications such
wikis and blogs becoming popular.
3.7.1.1 INFRASTUCTURE PRINCIPLES

It is important that the infrastructure as far as possible support the overall context being as
realistic as possible and enables users to explore new opportunities but doing so in the “real
world”. A Living Lab must not be experienced by users as an unnatural laboratory
environment.
Examples and Experiences

Infrastructure; results, status, experiences and needs being identified and described in
CoreLabs deliverables and with highlighted examples by (at least) the following LL’s:
• Belgium/Hasselt – Hasselt LL
• Finland/Helsinki, Helsinki (Arabienranta) LL
• Sweden/Luleå – Botnia Living Lab
• Hungary/Morahalom- Homokhati Rural Living Lab
Needs, challenges and questions:

All of this still begs the questions:-
• What type of infrastructure elements could inspire and support users, individually or
in group, to become more innovative?
• What infrastructure is missing to enable several Living Labs to operate together in
order to provide more competitive and advanced Living Lab services?
Page: 25 (61)
• In order to perform advanced RTD on next generation Internet technology and

architectures - Which are the most interesting real life environment RTD
infrastructures today (where large user-groups may be engaged to further boost the
RTD)?
3.7.1.2 BASIC ARCHITECTURE

It is worth noting that while many singular Living Labs of the network meet the basic
requirements of the proposed architecture, many of the issues mentioned as part of the ETP
research agendas such as Service Oriented Architecture or pervasive computing are either
very much in their infancy or not at all present. Obviously, these can be classed as visionary
but may prove vital if the ENoLL sustainability is to be ensured.
Figure 3 Basic Technologies of Living Lab architecture
Figure 3 illustrates the basic technologies that were represented across the majority of
surveyed Living Labs and provides an example of a basic technological architecture of a
Living Labs.
3.7.1.3 OPEN SERVICE ARCHITECTURE

In today’s IT industry, the cost of software production and maintenance is rocketing. In
addition, consumers are demanding more personalised solutions that reflect their wishes and
needs, customising each software product would inevitably increase the cost of production
and thus the cost to consumers. To counteract these effects, it is desirable to promote and
realise a means of software re-use. In achieving such a lofty ambition, software modularity
proves effective in essentially creating “spare parts” or components for software. Multiple
combinations of these software components can be used to manufacture more complex and
robust applications. To enable the easy coupling of these components, it is necessary that
their inter-dependencies be kept to a minimum. Such dependency minimisation is known as
“loose coupling”. Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) can be used to realise such “loose
coupling” between interacting software components. SOA’s achieve this by introducing 2
architectural constraints:
• A small set of simple, ubiquitous interfaces to all participating software components.
Page: 26 (61)
• Descriptive messages constrained by an extensible schema delivered through these

interfaces.
Web services are SOAs with additional constraints:
• Interfaces are based on Internet protocols such as HTTP, FTP and SMTP
• Except for binary data attachment, messages must be expressed in XML
The software modularity and open interoperability that SOAs aspire to, moulds very closely
to the architecture that a P2P network is promoting. P2P networks which are generally
heterogeneous and modular in nature can collaborate together to create larger complex,
efficient applications. Figure 4 illustrates the inclusion of an SOA structure into our Living
Labs architecture. The service modules are small pieces of re-usable components that can be
used to create customised and cost effective applications.
Figure 4 Living Labs architecture including SOA
In order to encourage competition through innovation and differentiation and to remove

barriers for interoperability, supporting a seamless and easy to use experience for end-users,
the SOA framework must support open standards where it is possible to build, deploy and
manage applications in a multi-vendor, multi-platform environment.
The ENoLL extends this concept to incorporate the end-user at all stages of design and
validation. Taking the concept a step further, a network of Living Labs introduces new
services & platforms, diverse users and a greater variety of interfaces and communication
protocols. Figure 5 illustrates the possibilities of software re-use and composition across a
networking of Living Labs all supporting service oriented architecture.
Page: 27 (61)
Figure 5 Service compositions across a network of Living Labs
3.8 Methods & Tools
Introduction
Related to Living Labs, methods and tools issues can be divided in several different
categories, depending on the different “roles” that the methods and tools may have:
• Methods and tools as results, being created in Living Lab processes. This means
methods and tools in the role of being the target for user-driven creation, such as
<examples>.
• Methods and tools to engage and activate users. This means infrastructure in the role
to enable the digital communication needed to appropriately support Living Lab tools and
methods based on cross-border communication with/between groups of distributed users
and other Living Lab stake-holders.
• Methods and Tools to support cross-border collaboration. As such the ENoLL
enables a shared space for information and knowledge sharing. Support for the discovery,
sharing, creation and modification of knowledge within the collaboration process must be
provided. Knowledge interfaces specific to the information that is shared across the
network need to implemented, an example of such an interface might be the use of HL7
in e-Health applications. Ontology and semantic descriptions can be applied across
resources to enable seamless integration of all forms of knowledge. The proliferation of
“social” technologies adds another dimension to knowledge sharing with applications
such wikis and blogs becoming popular.
Presence is an important enabling technology for collaboration since it allows a partner to
determine the status of other entities, and their availability for collaboration and
communication. More sophisticated presence mechanisms can even give status
information regarding their whereabouts and allow seamless ways of communicating with
them (e.g. automatically routing communications to the closest station of the user).
Presence also refers to the discovery of suitable services for re-use and new service
composition across architectures.
• Methods and tools to extract and aggregate important elements from “background
noise”. This means...
• Methods and tools needed to manage IPR and create new (business) values and
models. The living labs foster the formation of online communities and provide existing
rural communities with technical support. For geographical and demographical reasons
the Internet penetration in rural areas is far from that in larger cities. It seems that current
business models and technologies cannot achieve breakthrough in this area. Therefore we
need new business models which are closer to real life situations in rural areas, villages.
Page: 28 (61)
For example, in a small community people know each other and they try to solve any
arising problems in much closer cooperation than in larger towns and cities. From the
aspect of technology and business models the Wireless Mesh Network solution fits
perfectly into this picture. Utilizing this solution a community can achieve wireless
network coverage for a small town or village. The network infrastructure is managed by
volunteer citizens. As the whole system is self-healing and self-tuning, the system can be
expanded in a plug and play manner without special knowledge. With this solution the
whole community will have network access and will be able to communicate with each
other through this data network. The Internet access can be provided by volunteers
sharing their already existing wired connections. As a free source for the community, the
mayor’s office may provide the whole village/town with several broadband wired
gateways. The WMN can be used to extend the range and the services of an already
existing WiFi based ISP (W-ISP) or ISP’s.
• Methods and tools harmonisation to enable collaboration between Living Labs.
Methods and tools in the role of enabling several Living Labs to exchange information
and operate together, with purpose to offer more competitive and advanced services for
user-driven research, development and innovation.
Principles
It is important that the methods and tools as far as possible support the overall context being
as realistic as possible and enables users to explore new opportunities but doing so in the
“real world”. A Living Lab must not be experienced by users as an unnatural laboratory
environment.
Examples and Experiences

Methods and Tools; results, status, experiences being identified and described in CoreLabs
deliverables and with highlighted examples by the following LL’s:
• Hungary/Morahalom- Homokhati Rural Living Lab
• Mobile City Bremen
• Mobile City Bregenz
• Helsinki Living Lab
• Freeband Experience Living Lab
• Botnia Living Lab
• Arc Labs Waterford
• …
Needs, challenges and questions:

Workshop questions:
• What type of method and tools could inspire and support users, individually or in group,
to become more innovative?
• What methods and tools are missing to enable several Living Labs to operate together in
order to provide more competitive and advanced Living Lab services?
Complementary questions:
• How we can measure and identify the roles associated with the open and permanent
innovation process, locally?
• How the generic observation and measurement check-list should be developed as an
operational instrument to acquire quantitative and qualitative information, which is used
in actual process of information gathering:
Page: 29 (61)
- Living Labs report production (data, observations): first interim monitoring and
assessment reports
- Living Labs evaluation (assessment and conclusions).
- Comparative analysis of results across Living Labs, and over-all evaluation of results.
The results of the Corelabs project, manifested in the ‘Method & Tool Inventory and
Taxonomy’, and in the ‘Best Practice Report’ formed the basis for the definition of Living
Labs standards. In spite of the identification and collection of the most effective methods and
tools and best practices, the Living Labs approach lacked a standardised reference
methodology as a means to support the innovation process in creating new products and
services. The same was valid when it comes up to setting up and configuring a Living Lab
from the scratch. As such with the emergence of the second wave of Living Labs, many
organizations and stakeholders appeared which do not yet possess a Living Lab of their own,
but intend to establish a Living Lab in near future. Particularly for these candidates, a
standardized guideline of how to set up and configure a Living Lab would be a very valuable
contribution. Born out of this need, a coherent, mature and transferable suite of methods and
tools for Living Labs has been created. This suite of methods and tools shall represent a
guideline for creating new products and services, as well as a guideline for setting
up/configuring a Living Lab from the scratch. It is foreseen by the Corelabs consortium that
the reference methodology shall be a working document at least until 2009 in order to give
the LL community a chance to incorporate their expertise and experiences. During that time
and afterwards the reference methodology shall be made available to a broad community of
stakeholders via the Corelabs Repository which is an additional component of the CoreLabs
collaboration portal. Apart from the Living Labs methods, several tools which support the
methods have been identified in the context of the Corelabs taxonomy. Other initiatives and
projects, such as the Laboranova project (www.laboranova.com) are currently investigating
Living Labs tools for collaborative working environments in more detail.
3.9 Interoperability in different Domains

Workshop questions:
• Which domains are important to consider in terms of interoperability?
• Where has interoperability between domains proven successful (and with which
technologies)?
• Which technical aspects of interoperability between domains need to be considered in
future research?
Page: 30 (61)
Experiences and Examples

During the events promoting the introduction of the second wave of Living Labs it became
obvious through several interviews that many European second wave candidates focus upon
particular domains. This fact underlines the need to ensure interoperability in different
domains. A good example which highlights the interoperability in a very different domain
and context was conducted in South Africa by [16]. There the establishment of a Living Lab
in a rural environment in and around the Ndlovu Medical Centre (NMC) in Elandsdoorn
(Limpopo province) South Africa was achieved while targeting a new beneficiary group.
Aim was to establish an approach to develop a user friendly healthcare solution that is
culturally appropriate, robust and sustainable in the African rural context. As a rural based
project the Living Lab provided community based solutions that are scalable and replicable
on the African continent. In this joint initiative, the standardization framework of the
CoreLabs project was applied in a rural context. The existing Living Labs cases (as
described in existing Corelabs deliverables) and the work in Corelabs so far were used as a
reference point to define how to design and implement a novel Living Lab, e.g. the set-up of
a Living Lab in the area of Pretoria, with emphasize on the interconnection between rural
and urban areas. In this sense this initiative establishes a bridge between Europe and South
Africa allowing (research) insights and ideas are exchanged and validated. This was
illustrated in the Singazenzela project. Singa involves children as co-creators of a game tool.
The game is a metaphor of a place where children can do things for themselves that normally
would be harder to achieve in the real world such as have fun, make new friends, store
personal documents and get help with finding services for civilians. Without going into
details what can be reported clearly are the strengths and weakness of the process of
facilitating user participation and involvement. Facilitating co-creation of product and
service or application development is the core service offered by Singazenzela. The figure
below illustrates how the Harmonization Cube was helpful in setting the scene and
addressing the relevant issues when setting up a Living Lab in Ndlovu.
Page: 31 (61)
4 ROADMAP ACTIONS AND MILESTONES
4.1 Today – Current status of Living Labs

Over the last few years, a diverse multitude of Living Lab systems/environments have been
initiated across Europe. As of 17 Oct 2007, when the “second wave” of Living Labs entered
the network, altogether fifty-one Living Labs will be members of the European Network of
Living Labs (ENoLL).
Most of the Living Labs in Europe are not separate legal entities themselves, but are rather
entities hosted by non-commercial bodies (typically a university or municipality). A majority
of the observed Living Labs, have a focus on user-driven development of ICT intensive
services. In its nature most existing Living Labs are based on business-citizens-government-
academia partnerships. The driving power comes from a combination of investors (financing
LL build-up), customers (buying services) and partners (engaged in LL federation). One
organisation may of course take a combination of roles (e.g. both investor and customer). By
nature benefits are both recognized and anticipated by all drivers (being the reason for their
engagement).´Several large countries outside Europe (China, Brazil, South Africa etc) are
already active as well. These nations/regions represent large populations and key markets,
which is of fundamental importance for European industry.
4.2 Living Lab Maturity Phases

Though great variations exist, the Living Labs maturity and development generally go
through a sequence of maturity phases as highlighted below.
Figure 03 LL Maturity Steps
4.3 2007 second half - Portuguese Presidency - ENoLL 2nd

wave launch
Oct 16 Draft Living Lab Roadmap presented
Oct 17 ENoLL 2nd wave Launch Event
Nov 08 ENoLL 3rd wave preparatory event in Slovenia
Page: 32 (61)
Nov 30 Living Lab Roadmap – 2nd version available

Dec 15 CLOCK Coordination Action project ends
4.4 2008 first half - Slovenian Presidency - ENoLL 3rd wave

Feb 27 CoreLabs Coordination Action project ends
June ENoLL 3rd wave Launch Event (timing tbc)
4.5 2008 second half - French Presidency - Completion of ENoLL

launch
# to be established #
4.6 2009 first half - Czech Presidency

4.7 2009 second half - Swedish Presidency

4.8 2010 and beyond

Page: 33 (61)
5 COLLABORATION AND NETWORKING
5.1 The Living Labs Portfolio

There is an emerging collaborative structure, directly associated to the increasing interest for
user-centric experimentation and validation in general and the European Network of Living
Labs in particular. Currently (Oct 2007) this structure comprises:
• European Network of Living Labs,
• Living Labs Open Innovation Community
• Living Labs Partner Network (emerging)
• Living Labs related projects
• Living Labs Portfolio Leadership Group
These elements of the collaborative structure are described further below:
5.1.1 EUROPEAN NETWORK OF LIVING LABS
The European Network of Living Labs ENoLL comprises (Nov. 2007) 52 different existing
or emerging Living Labs, which have committed to exchange experiences and develop ways
to collaborate which aims to enable net-based services for user-driven research, development
and innovation.
Figure 04 ENoLL Headquarters Map
Page: 34 (61)
5.1.2 LIVING LABS OPEN INNOVATION COMMUNITY
At the same time a “Living Lab Open Innovation Community was launched giving any
person interested in Living Labs a mechanism to get information and connect into on-going
activities.
5.1.3 EMERGING LIVING LABS PARTNER NETWORK
5.1.4 LIVING LABS RELATED PROJECTS
Currently the Living Labs related projects include eight (8) EU-FP6 projects;
• CoreLabs (CA)
• CLOCK (CA)
• Collaboration@Rural (IP)
• CoSpaces (IP)
• Ecospace (IP)
• Laboranova (IP)
• WearIT@Work (IP)
• OpenFutures (SSA).
5.1.5 LIVING LABS PORTFOLIO LEADERSHIP GROUP
The Living Labs Portfolio Leadership Group (LLP-LG) is currently acting as the main body
for coordination of plans and activities (including this roadmap).
Page: 35 (61)
5.2 From Regional Networks to Global Reach
REGIONAL AND NATIONAL COOPERATION
Importance, Driver(s) and Examples: Activities on national basis are important and should
be complementary to the initiatives taken on European an International arena. LL experience
exchange help to identify national demands on Living Labs and for SMEs, initially targeting
a rather homogeneous (no barriers such as language, legislation and culture etc) domestic
market, it is easier to work with a national LL network. Expected and already visible main
driver in this dimension are national funding agencies such as Swedish innovation agency
VINNOVA which recently (April 2007) launched a two year Living Labs pilot programme
which invest in build-up of five new Swedish Living Labs connected in national Living Labs
network. Other examples are; Finnish ICT SHOK LLs and Test-beds, Portuguese, German
(big program in progress?), Dutch and Belgian initiatives.
The “DC10” UK Living Labs initiative seeks to create greater knowledge of, and
commitment to, the Living Labs approach and focuses on nine main themes:
1. User Centred e.g. How will users be integral to all phases of the project? How
Design & Production will the project give incentive to real world participation in its
design, delivery and sustainability? Discussion of examples will
be provided at the Living Lab workshop.
2. Open and Creative e.g. How will the project demonstrate that it is responding to
Innovation Processes demand-driven requirements in real world settings? How will the
project ensure that it is flexible enough to maintain an open and
creative approach to new ideas throughout all phases of the
project?
3. Demonstrate social e.g. Where is the step-change in patterns of behaviour (of living
innovation and/or working) occurring?
4. Value Creation e.g. employee/organization value, citizen/user value, alliance

partner value, societal value etc
5. Scalability e.g. What is it about the work-stream/project which is likely to

scale? What’s the process for how this might be achieved?
6. Commitment to e.g. provide an overview here of main approaches

share information and
experience
7. Genuine cross- e.g. What is it about the structure and process of the project
sector collaboration which will encourage genuine collaboration across sectors?
Page: 36 (61)
8. Inclusion e.g. How will the project contribute to improving social

inclusion and the empowerment of users through a more open
and creative approach to innovation?
9. Collaborative e.g. How will the project ensure that its work is made available
networking and accessible to other related projects and networks, including
what form of licensing arrangements, such as Creative
commons, would be used to support this?
Network of Dutch Living Labs

The Netherlands has one of the most advanced service economies in the Western world.
Thus, the Netherlands can be characterized as a gateway to Europe with a highly developed
cluster of financial and knowledge-intensive services and extensive public facilities. Many
non-European companies use their base in the Netherlands as a springboard and test market.
The Netherlands enjoys good ICT infrastructure with major Internet exchanges, coupled with
high acceptance of the Internet and high broadband penetration that is ideal for a living lab
approach to research where the social and technological innovations are researched together.
The service sector is a growing part of our GNP. Traditionally, the users in the Netherlands
are among the first to adapt innovative methods based on new technological and social
possibilities. This is an ideal situation for creating a Living Lab to test new services.
Telematica Institute is involved in several Dutch initiatives: Holland Living Labs (together
with CETIM), Amsterdam Living Lab, the current Freeband initiative and has been involved
in “Kenniswijk” the forerunner of the current Eindhoven’s Brainport.
These initiatives are related to a large innovation program that is being developed by the
Ministry of Economic affairs called “The service society”. Living Labs are at the core of this
program as research method to determine successful innovation approaches. This innovation
program will be an eight year program. Decisions on this program will be taken in 2008 with
an expected start in 2009.
The Amsterdam Living Lab aims at an innovation program of almost € 20 million for three
years with a Dutch government of € 8 million of which € 4 million of the regional
government of Amsterdam (foreseen start in 2008), Freeband is an innovation program more
than € 80 million for 7 years with € 40 million from the Dutch government (finish in 2008).
Interesting (future) research topics of the Network of Dutch Living Labs are:
Page: 37 (61)
Intelligent environments allow for the design of new stimuli from which people can create
their own meaningful experiences, which raise new challenges and ask for new methods for
data collection and analysis. Upcoming mobile devices and services tend to become more
and more personalized and adaptable to the user, user experiences generally tend to evolve
over time and the user’s experiences in prolonged use of applications are often crucial to
their success. Thus, longer-term studies are needed in order to capture the issue of evolving
user experiences. At the same time, these emergent technologies have qualities that can be
exploited in in-situ evaluation? What are these qualities, what is the impact of using such
innovative tools for in-situ research and evaluation as well?
Thus, data collection might not be an issue, as much data can be automatically captured, but
how do we deal with the resulting (huge) data set? How can we interpret the data in a
meaningful and useful way? How to inform the design of new services, how to improve
systems design, how to design better context-aware systems. In all of this, privacy remains a
delicate issue.
Another important aspect for the success of future in-situ research is the permanent
availability of (interconnected) intelligent Living Labs. Results are not simply scalable, for
this, methodologies and protocols are needed.
EUROPEAN CROSS-BORDER COOPERATION
Importance, Driver(s) and Examples: Nordic Innovation Centre (project: ENoLL/Nordic),

NordForsk (project: NoriaNet), Central European (Slovenian based), IberNoLL (tbc)
Example – ENoLL/Nordic
Nordic Living Labs can - as integral elements of the European Network of Living Labs
(ENoLL, www.openlivinglabs.eu ) - create Nordic-scale experimentation platforms and pilot
user groups for new services, business and technology and thus enhance new market and
industry creation. By applying Living Lab thinking and methodology also for public sector,
complementary opportunities can be explored.
Besides a user centred innovation processes the time span to market adaptation should be as
short as possible, in particular for ICT products and services. One way to obtain this is
concurrent interaction between all parties involved in the value network: from the end-users
to producer and basic research communities.
ENoLL/Nordic, a Nordic Network of User-Driven Innovation and livinglabbing, was
established in May 2007 with support of the Nordic Innovation Centres (NICs). This
regional Living Lab network promotes user-driven innovation and “livinglabbing” through
national, Nordic, European and International networking and active awareness rising among
industry, academia and public sector.
The critical success factors (Living Lab services and assets) as well as proofs of concept
(examples of added values for industry and academy) will be collected and described in the
"Living Lab Toolbox" and "Industry guide".
The Toolbox will be co-compiled by the project consortium and the Nordic Network for
User-driven Innovation and Livinglabbing in collaboration with the other NIC UDI projects.
It is also of outmost importance that the Living Labs are connected and linked together.
Trough the Living Labs network a regional customer who needs access to Living Lab
services somewhere else (e.g due to a specific product launch) can involve pilot users and
potential customers in a specific part of the globe. Services and products of today often must
be developed for an international market in the first attempt.
Page: 38 (61)
ENoLL/Nordic will organize 10 workshops during 2007-2008 and compiles two guides for
open delivery: one for Living Lab service providers and one for of their customer
organisations. ENoLL/Nordic supports the rest of the NIC funded innovation projects as a
test environment.
GLOBAL COOPERATION
Of particular interest are emerging economies such as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa) countries. Other countries that fall into this kind of emerging
market include Turkey, Romania and Mexico etc. This kind of emerging market is very
complex to understand as there is no common cultural base. Consequently an end user
centric development process being followed has many advantages in such environments. The
local presence and interaction with end users and stakeholders is able to cope with rapidly
changing policy and business conditions due to the sometimes high growth rates of the
national economy. Socioeconomic processes are extremely dynamic causing rapidly
changing requirements. Additionally societal structures are very heterogeneous reflecting
social and cultural diversity. Again there is continuous change on these structures due to the
economic progression of the developing world. Accordingly the interoperation between these
structures is difficult to oversee. Livinglabbing addresses these aspects at its core and
enables to trace these changing requirements in real time.
Living Labs provide great value for validating technology advancements in an environment
that does not allow to simply being extrapolated form state of the art (European) technology.
Particularly Living Labs in developing countries or emerging economies such as the BRICS
provide data on the applicability and acceptance of “European” technology paradigms based
on an understanding of local markets and user requirements.
Living Lab Networks should therefore aim at increasing the use of Living Labs as a
methodology in developing countries or emerging economies to guide the design and
development of appropriate/relevant technologies (in Europe) for deployment in emerging
economies.
Most importantly – FP7 WP2009/10 should also provide in the urgent need to increase
“technology research” (in contrast to road-mapping and dissemination) in emerging
economies to build up human research capacity and a sound technology skills base in these
regions.
Page: 39 (61)
6 STRATEGY AND RECOMMENDATIONS, INVESTMENTS AND

BENEFITS
6.1 ICT Research and Technology Development (RTD)

Due to varying maturity and different thematic focus, demands for RTD vary among ENoLL
members. Most Living Labs’ immediate ICT needs are related to fundamental Living Lab
instrumentation such as database systems for user management and statistical analysis and
tools and infrastructure for collaboration. Here the basic LL needs can be solved by
integration and application of existing technology.
However, at the ENoLL Living Lab ”frontiers” 2-4 years ahead, quite specific needs for
RTD have been identified, deemed critical for ENoLL success in the 2009-10 timeframe and
beyond. Hence, investments in LL enabling ICT RTD, addressing these needs, should start
today in order to have results ready when demands grow.
The most important RTD, specifically driven by the Living Labs principles, is RTD on ICT
infrastructures, environments and tools which enable the following target outcome:
6.1.1 LIVING LABS PLATFORM - REFERENCE MODEL AND PRINCIPAL ARCHITECTURE
Well integrated LL systems where ICT ”LL/ENoLL functional components” can be

integrated, added, removed and reintegrated, step-by-step, during the gradual development
and maturation of current and future Living Labs in ENoLL.
Obviously, here is an opportunity for ENoLL to offer, to its members, an open source based
”LL toolbox” of downloadable LL/ENoLL modules, which have been checked to be
compatible and to strengthen LL interoperability.
RTD need:
• A Living Lab reference model which suggests a suitable break-down of Living Labs total
functionality into suitable functional components.
• A Living Lab reference architecture which suggest a suitable break-down into modules
(technical components) allowing step-wise build-up and assembly of modules into an
ENoLL harmonized Living Labs system/platform.
6.1.2 COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENTS FOR OPEN CROSS-BORDER CO-CREATION
The most central Living Labs capability is to offer powerful means for different individual
stakeholders from different types of organisations and large user groups to interact and
collaborate in a way which strongly promotes and empowers creativity.
RTD need:
• Cross-border creative activities (idea modelling etc) in large distributed groups
• Synchronous version of “Innovation Jams”, ….
• Social networking in the context of research and development for innovations
• Integration of emerging technologies regarding Web 2.0 and Next Generation Internet
into trusted collaborative environments
• Mapping and routing of ideas and knowledge
• Empowering and facilitating collective "wisdom of crowds"
Page: 40 (61)
6.1.3 SUSTAINABLE LARGE SCALE USER ENGAGEMENT IN OPEN INNOVATION
Today, open innovation is typically triggered by an “inside organisation” offering an

innovation environment (web portal) to the outside and then capturing and leveraging the
outside contributions (ideas, proposals and content etc) which match the business model of
the “inside”. However, to realize these objectives, scouting mechanisms and marketplaces
for innovation have to be created. Practicioners like Procter&Gamble created or were
involved in the creation of initiatives like Innocentive, yet2.com or NineSigma. All of them
are devoted to providing spaces for Open Innovation to realize its potential and directed to
different levels of the process, from the concrete ones where a very concrete solution is
searched (e.g. Innocentive) to more exploratory ones like NineSigma where long or medium
term involvements are pursued.
These typical examples show how ICT can help in the Open Innovation process.
However these examples also typically reveal a lack of certain key capabilities which are
instrumental for Living Lab principles and mode of operations.
RTD need:
• Framework for intelligent and adaptable user interfaces to enable user-driven
improvement of the open innovation environment itself
• User data in innovation processes: what data and how to manage it
• Options for the individual to control integrity and privacy.
• Co-creation support & feedback mechanisms on tool adoption & appropriation processes
6.1.4 CATEGORIZATION AND ROUTING OF REAL LIFE SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS
A Living Lab should support its users to trigger innovation in real life/work contexts.
It is said that “urgency is the mother of invention”. A large user community is potentially a
very powerful source of market relevant ideas and innovations triggered by user’s reactions
and urges in their normal real life environments. However, in order to capture the urge
(spontaneous reactions/ideas), users needs very easy ways to express their ideas. This
indicates that users should be allowed to express themselves in “free format” and to submit
the idea with no particular address.
RTD need:
• Easy to use mechanisms for users, in normal real life environments, to spontaneously
express reactions, urges and ideas.
• Categorization of ideas based on context and content.
• Sorting and clustering of ideas into “principal ideas” based on category
• Routing (addressing) of “principal ideas” to appropriate receivers
Page: 41 (61)
6.1.5 LIVING LAB PLATFORM FOR SERVICE EXPERIMENTATION
Living Labs currently provide value in highly local and specific circumstances, while at the
same time exchanging ideas and best practices on a European level. Market realities as well
as experiences with other research infrastructures such as technical test-beds make it clear
that in order to realise a radical improvement in terms of success rate and impact, user-driven
Living Lab and Open Innovation platforms should extend their reach to include several
markets and environments at the same time. An interlinked European Living Lab space
providing real-time access to local resources would offer not just the much-needed large-
scale effects, but would also provide a unique networked testing ground taking into account
and valuing the heterogeneity of a multicultural Europe. Also, a distributed European-wide
service experimentation environment would enable differentiated testing and concurrent
experimentation with different set-ups and several business architectures, recognising and
controlling for local circumstances. This kind of experimentation can also be supported by
new service science concepts.
A serious R&D effort is necessary into the concept, components and practical feasibility of a
distributed, virtual service experimentation platform for large-scale Living Lab research.
Such a platform should be open and entirely technology agnostic, linking valuable
components and resources residing at the local level. Advanced and open identity
management and monitoring, context and location awareness, group awareness and other
components could be offered to all in a federated manner. This would enable open
innovation experimentation including testing various business architectures and revenue
models. New service science concepts should be applied to support this kind of
experimentation. Also, this would create a much-needed European Living Lab space with
experienced local hubs that European R&D projects in multiple domains could fruitfully
make use of.
RTD need:
• Development and experimentation of new service components, interfaces and
architectures aimed at large-scale service, organisational and societal innovation.
• A structured framework for interoperability within Living Labs in order to guarantee a
European approach.
6.1.6 LIVING LAB PLATFORM - EXTENSION FOR BUSINESS MODEL EXPERIENCE
RTD is needed addressing the technical challenges to arrange for cost effective pilot trials
for business validation of innovations, in as realistic conditions as possible, as a basis for
decisions about the often very significant investments needed to make a real market
introduction. RTD topics include:
RTD need:
• Trusted and secure platform for piloting of new charging and payment models
• Simulations (serious games) and virtual trials of dynamic innovation effects, such as new
usage patterns, business/market development and side-effects
• Solutions for open and easy pilot access to media (content) which instruments adequate
protection against fraud/misuse of proprietary content (not yet publicly released or
without appropriate copyright protection).
Page: 42 (61)
6.1.7 VIRTUAL CITY AND SOCIO-SEMANTIC (WIRELESS) INTERNET OF THINGS
Living Labs can be seen as virtual overlays that are in continuous interaction with the
physical space (real world) and in which users are able to move around freely. The recent
worldwide wireless and digital city initiatives are complementary, embryonic ways of
providing virtual public mobile spaces, but the shortcomings of these initiatives have become
highly apparent over the last months. It has become clear that offering wireless access
without stimulating content and applications that are directly related to the physical-virtual
interaction itself, offers insufficient added value. The most innovative and most valuable
approach is aimed at the creation of open, ambient service experimentation environments
that support and enrich the interaction of people, communities and objects with the physical
environment and with each other, where technology is not the end in itself but a powerful
goal-oriented tool.
New interaction models between physical and virtual worlds should be developed to enhance
innovation, emphasizing the mobile context and experimenting with new concepts of private
and public spheres. R&D efforts into the (wireless) internet of things should be extended and
applied in a Living Lab context. This refers to a near-future environment full of
communicating, metadata-rich objects. An important research strand is looking at socio-
semantics to transform the (wireless) internet of things into a socially meaningful context.
There is an urgent need to conduct more research in this field at the theoretical level but also
at the empirical level, i.e. to monitor and explore its dynamics in real-life situations.
RTD needed:
• Development and experimental implementation of new ambient public-private sphere
concepts and new physical-virtual interaction models including socio-semantics.
• Virtual environments and markets for open innovation of real world market services and
products
6.1.8 TREND DETECTION AND ANALYSIS OF USAGE PATTERNS
< to be described >
6.1.9 EASY VISUALISATION AND MODELLING OF MACHINE LEARNING
< to be described >
TARGET OUTCOME
Past experiences like the IBM Innovation Jams that captured more than 50.000 IBM and
related employees showed the power of information technologies when applied to large
groups but also showed the limitation of their dynamics, in terms of engaging people and
preventing free riders and recognition of contributors. This type of groups could, of course,
be set-up ad-hoc or continuously creating communities and integrating them with the
infrastructure of companies, living labs, science parks or even political structures for
promoting innovation and participation in political settings.
Page: 43 (61)
Living Labs, and in general any attempt of capturing the users experience, especially in pre-
commercial platform exploration, face the problem of the inadequacy of the instruments. The
use of qualitative instruments that are based on extensive human intervention prevents not
only its use in large scale projects but also its use longitudinally, aiming to capture the right
moment where groups of users use a certain product in an unintended way or where
untargeted groups appear. Capturing user input in large groups cannot be done without
applying IT methodologies, IT infrastructures, support for end-user co-creation & feedback
mechanisms and data mining techniques. This is a basic requirement to realize the benefits of
experimentation in large users groups.
Some of the ideas around these concepts can be presented as:
EXPECTED IMPACT
< to be described >
FUNDING SCHEMES
< to be described >
6.2 Socio-economic research

Technological advances increase spectrum of possible solutions. When combined with the
increase and more available knowledge, innovation management will shift from an
integrated model to an open model.
The locus of innovation can therefore no longer be situated in the R&D centres of larger
companies but in the society itself. Central to this shift in locus is the role of users in the
innovation process. Users are not anymore simple receivers but active actors in the
innovation process.
In this context experimentation, and especially experimentation in real life environments, has
become a key element of innovation. The significantly changed environment demands a
change in the type of policies and instruments that aim at its support.
ICT based experimental platforms in real life contexts both provide services to the different
actors and act themselves as intermediaries in the innovation process by connecting different
and unrelated agents. This pro-active connection is central in an Open Innovation
environment where many companies, professionals, research institutions, public bodies and
citizens can actively be engaged in the innovation process. However, these models are still in
their infancy, in an environment still dominated by the Porterian cluster conception.
Therefore more research is needed to understand them and to extract the key elements that
could be central in structuring policies and instruments for a societal Open Innovation model
matching the European reality.
The literature tells us that consistent public policies, innovative regulatory systems and large
investments are needed to create over time the conditions to develop complex socio-
technical systems like Living Labs and mitigate three critical uncertainties associated with
the adjustment process: (a) unclear expectations related to the level of dematerialization of
social and economic activities; (b) effective adoption patterns of new technologies by
citizens and customers, particularly influenced by accessibility, affordability and usability;
and (c) unpredictability of demand for interactive services from both localized and
geographically dispersed communities. A large body of evidence supports the critical need
for adequately managing these aforementioned uncertainties and shows the necessity of
effective infrastructures, incentives and adequate institutional frameworks to be promoted
over time and across space.
Page: 44 (61)
On the other hand, these incentives for infrastructures should be continuous, but articulated
with the need to foster knowledge networks – communities of creation, interest or proximity
– to mobilize individuals, communities and organizations for the Living Labs. This requires
not only a continuous long-term public effort, but also a better understanding of the
effectiveness of the mix of public support mechanisms and private incentives necessary for
the development of Living Labs. Market mechanisms do not necessarily work at the level of
the issues associated with Living Labs, namely in less favourable zones.
Socio-economic research calls for an interdisciplinary approach to create, accumulate and
disseminate knowledge related to Living Labs. While the multidisciplinary approach keeps
the separated perspectives from each discipline, Living Labs must integrate methods and
perspectives from diverse disciplines and fields of research to create a multidimensional
problem solving tool.
The most important target outcome of Socio-economic research, specifically driven by the
Living Labs principles is described below:
6.2.1 SOCIO-TECHNOLOGICAL PLAYGROUND FOR USER INNOVATION
ICT and internet developments are increasingly embedded in the everyday socio-cultural
world of people and communities. The socio-technological interplay between the global
social context and new media technologies sets new challenges for the European IST and
media industry to profoundly understand what drives groups of people to adopt and use
media technologies in their communication and interactions. Making the Web social and
avoiding digital exclusion on all levels takes more than only developing technological Web
2.0 tools for participatory communication.
For this, a substantial R&D effort is required on social level. First the requirements for
designing and developing new technologies need to be extended from the individual user
characteristics to the social ecosystem. This refers to the involvement of groups of
specialised users (like ‘lead users’) and of producing users (like citizen journalists and
bloggers) in early research and development phases. However the still uncharted territory is
the everyday users and the way they are involved in innovation trajectories. Only a
harmonised and distributed Living Lab space in Europe makes it possible to identify and
extract the innovative potential of all European citizens. This will enable technological and
service innovation to become embedded within economic and social innovation.
Thus a European collective of ICT playgrounds will on the one hand increase the
competitive power of European ICT and media industry by a more people-oriented
technological innovation capacity. On the other hand social research via Living Labs can
help in strengthening the social cohesion between people, communities, regions and
countries.
Socio-economic research need:
• Development and experimentation of multi-methodological Living Lab tool sets for in-
depth investigation of the mutual shaping between people, communities and associations
on the one hand and converging ambient technologies on the other hand.
Formal modelling and Best Practise Analysis of ICT-enabled Real Life

Experimentation Based Environments.
• Networking and Early stage innovation processes
• Successful Regional, Theme/Sector Collaborations
• New paradigms for IPR in socio-technical environments
• New cluster/partnership formats and cooperation formulas
Page: 45 (61)
• Events and other innovation triggers
Real Life Experimental Platforms, such as Living Labs, as Service Providers and
Intermediaries in the Research, Development and Innovation Process
• Services for Open Innovation
• Open Innovation at societal level in an European Context
• Regional policy and Open Innovation
• Knowledge Networks
• Mobilization of communities of creation
Studies of short term and long term impacts from Living Labs
• Full life-cycle impact on services/products
• Impact on individuals and organisations (e.g. innovation capability)
• Socio-economic impact
EXPECTED IMPACT
The expected impact of the Living Lab approach can be visualized through an analysis of
eleven existing Living Labs based on comprehensive interviews supported by extensive
questionnaires. The results of these interviews can be summarized in the following two
tables:
On the left hand side, the five evaluation criteria for Living Labs are identified. On the right
hand side, the comparative performance of Living Labs against the “conventional” validation
methodologies, highlighting the cases where this can be clearly detected, is presented.
Table 02: Comparison of alternative user centred methodologies
Relevance (a)
Prior Technology Mapping Yes Yes
Socio-economic Analysis Yes/No No
Purposeful Panel Selection Yes Yes
Ex-post Statistical Control Yes Yes
Direct Analysis Techniques Yes/No Yes/No
Indirect Analysis Techniques Yes Yes
Efficiency (b)
Reusability of results Yes/No Yes/No
Stakeholders involvement Yes No
Payoffs to Stakeholders Yes No
Charges to Stakeholders Yes No
CWE based methodologies Yes/No Yes/No
Legend:
(a) the appropriateness of a project/programme design to the needs/tasks addressed and to the
assumptions made and/or context parameters
Page: 46 (61)
(b) the extent to which the project/programme inputs were supplied and activities organised
in the most appropriate way and at the least cost to generate the final results
Table 03: Comparison of alternative user centred methodologies (cont’d)
Efficacy / Effectiveness (c)

Publicity of results Yes/No No
“Returning Customer” Yes Yes
Increasing number of panellists Yes No
In situ evaluation Yes No
Product/Service ideation Yes No
Product/Service conception Yes No
Product/Service development Yes Yes
Product/Service launch Yes Yes
Sustainability (d)
Dependency on external funding Yes Yes
Ethical Issues No No
Privacy Issues Yes Yes
Security Issues Yes/No No
Gender Issues No No
Replicability Yes Yes
Impact (e)
Time to market Yes/No Yes
New/Improved products/services Yes Yes
Patent applications No Yes/No
Creation of new companies No No
Improved functionalities Yes Yes/No
Better reliability of products/services Yes No
Reduced complexity of products/services Yes No
New or increased demand Yes No
User satisfaction Yes No
User empowerment Yes No
Local community Yes No
National/International community Yes No
Legend:
(c) degree of achievement of a project/programme results in terms of benefits actually
received by the stakeholders involved;
(d) attitude of a project/programme to generate positive effects even after its end (or the
exhaustion of external funding);
(e) extent to which the overall objectives of the project/programme were achieved, and the
contribution of the project to their achievement.
Page: 47 (61)
It is quite evident from the above comparison that the “added value” of Living Labs over
traditional (user centred) validation methodologies, especially lies in the efficiency (2),
efficacy (3) and impact (5) evaluation criteria.
Regarding efficiency, in spite of the absence of meaningful reporting in terms of costs, it can
be stated that the presence of a higher number of stakeholders, apart from the Living Lab
owner, interested in the running of the pilots (compared to the traditional, “laboratory” case
where this is limited to a single organisation) may reduce the overall cost of the trials,
perhaps in exchange for a wider and more timely publicity of results.
While it might be expected that the cost of gathering a few people in a laboratory may be
lower than a large scale, “real-life” panel conducted over a whole population, the use of even
simple ICT-supported methods (like log analysis for example) or solutions (like tools for
collective decision making or consensus reaching) can positively affect this evaluation
criterion. Furthermore, it seems possible to conclude from the survey performed that a
Living Lab can offer a cost-effective methodology for earlier incorporation of users in the
product/service creation cycle, so that more expensive product/service changes in the later
phases can be prevented.
However, it is in the efficacy (or effectiveness) area that Living Labs seem to show their
most significant performance. By making reference of a real, and reportedly growing in
number, community of people, it is not just that the unit cost of the trial scales down, but a
wider scope of analysis is allowed (including ideation and conception of products and
services, not very often implemented in the traditional approach), and, what is most
important, the benefits of “in situ” validation are gained.
This reflects into a list of impact indicators where most user-related features like better
reliability, reduced complexity, satisfaction, empowerment and even consumer demand are
reportedly enhanced and contextualised, with implications to both the local and the
(inter)national community.
Whether or not this can be sufficient to justify an increased use of Living Labs, e.g. by the
ICT industry, is partly a matter of compared costs and benefits and partly a result of the
specific subject matter of validation. In other words, the larger the potential or actual scale of
distribution/consumption is for the targeted good or service, the more useful can eventually
prove the recourse to Living Labs methodology.
FUNDING SCHEMES
DG INFSO and/or RTD, FP7 2009-10 (tbc)
Page: 48 (61)
6.3 Research infrastructure

The number of potentially connected nodes within urban and rural environments that support
Living Labs initiatives has significantly increased in the last couple of years, and includes
GSM/GPRS wired PDAs, WiFi enabled laptops, 3G mobile phones, ADSL connected game
consoles and entertainment PCs, Bluetooth tablet PCs, Videophones, Interactive TVs, real-
time environment sensors (e.g. air and water quality), large databases (corporations, libraries,
museums, public administration), GPS oriented cars, and GPS traceable trucks and buses.
Also, new layers of territory-related data and information are been created in a daily basis,
like municipal geographic information, Internet city guides, interactive maps and routes, and
3D worlds. In fact, as computers and communication networks become ubiquitous and
interlinked, they will turn out to be another invisible urban infrastructure, such as the new
paradigm of semantic grids, analogous to public utilities like electric grids, water distribution
systems and sewage systems that sustain daily life. To cope with this increased complexity,
research on Open Access Networks as new paradigm of open and standardized
communication infrastructure is needed.
TARGET OUTCOME
Within the context of Open Access Networks for Living Labs, what strategies should be
followed to implement and/or expand OAN in the varied geographies where Living Labs
may flourish? What mix of technologies is most suitable to provide broadband over OAN in
both urban and rural Living Labs? On the Living Labs supply-side, what mix of services and
contents are more competitive over an OAN infrastructure? On the demand-side, what are
the users’ latent needs and wants? What kind of regulatory and interoperability mechanisms
should be implemented to guarantee heterogeneity, diversification and competition among
Living Labs service providers? What are the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders
involved in the implementation and operation of Living Labs OANs with emphasis on
public-private partnerships? What is the role of closed networks operators in the
development of open and neutral networks? What level of integration and standardization
should be reached within the context of the Living Labs? Which business models are
potentially sustainable in the long term within the perspective of balancing the Living Labs
economic profitability and social inclusiveness? How OAN may support the development of
users’ co-creation in the Living Lab environment? How OAN can impact growth and
employment? How can OAN help bridging the digital divide? The objective of this research
is to respond to these research questions and, as a result, provide a policy framework for the
Living Labs wide implementation as a pillar of a European Innovation System in the context
of the renewed Lisbon Strategy.
EXPECTED IMPACT
The implementation of complex technology-enabled infrastructures to support large scale

Living Labs calls for a broader approach where social and cultural aspects as well as new
business models are integrated in early design phases to mitigate uncertainties of networked
infrastructures, such as sustainability, flexibility and scalability.
Open Access Networks (OAN) will enable networked test beds for the deployment of Living
Labs in peripheral and remote areas, providing low-cost ubiquitous (wire-line and wire-less)
broadband for public and private (business and residential) uses in underserved geographies
with the objectives of stimulating user-driven innovation and offering relevant content and
services to local communities.
Page: 49 (61)
It may be also expected that the OAN architecture may create the necessary competitive
environment where innovative content and services will flourish with positive impacts on
bridging the digital divide, strengthening of social networks, local entrepreneurship and user-
driven innovation. The results may be used as a toolkit by Living Labs and supporting
communities of creation which aim to improve the quality of life, increase business
competitiveness and encourage open innovation through the deployment of broadband.
FUNDING SCHEMES
FP7 Capacities programme (2008)/ Research Infrastructure.
6.4 Thematic networks for harmonisation
6.4.1 TOWARDS KEY THEMATICALLY STRUCTURED LIVING LABS
Living Labs can be a critical tool to stimulate innovation and widespread adoption in specific
domains. It is therefore recommended to identify or set up key Living Labs that have an
explicit focus on a certain domain (space technologies, mobility, media, e-health,…)
With regard to the domain of e-health – e.g. one of the iLab-O key domains - exemplary
Living Lab projects, infrastructures and toolboxes should be set up, monitored and evaluated
in order to tailor Living Labs to the specific characteristics of the e-health domain. The focus
of an e-health Living Lab is not primarily on the efficiency of medical treatment. This is an
evaluation to be made by a health professional, and not by the Living Lab. Therefore medical
professionals need to participate as stakeholders in the Living Lab. Rather, the focus should
be on the (often indirect) dynamics and impacts that e-health applications can have on the
overall quality of life of people, patients and care takers. This should be extensively
monitored and measured in real-life circumstances.
Important R&D challenges for e-health Living Labs are to extend their attention towards the
changes in the care process, in the workflow for caretakers (professionals and non-
professionals) and in the healthcare value chain. Also, ample attention should be paid to the
cost-effectiveness combining operational and technical costs, taking into account third party
payment models, and including health insurance companies and service deliverance
companies as stakeholders in the Living Lab. A new e-health Living Lab approach should
also take into account fundamental changes in target markets, such as a shift from specific
patient groups towards non- or multi-pathology based groups (in case of cure-related
applications) and even towards the general public (in case of care and prevention-related
applications).
What is needed: Some key thematically structured Living Labs on European scale have to be
identified related to specific themes (policy, user, technology,…) and domains (e-health,
urban technologies, e-inclusion, automotive, space,…). In relation to this approach new
Living Lab methodologies to be developed and evaluated in empirical, large scale and multi-
stakeholder settings.
STATUS OF EUROPEAN LIVING LABS
Generally speaking, we can allocate the European Living Labs into three basic groups:
Mature Living Labs, or the real success stories of the pan-European movement, started
several years ago and holding a successful track record of activities;
Maturing Living Labs, or the fastest movers to this respect, that were initiated later or in
parallel and are now showing a promising scorecard of results;
Page: 50 (61)
Beginners, a sort of a “bridge” built between the 1st and the 2nd/3rd wave of Living Labs, that
were both late in their introduction and not so wealthy in terms of activities performed /
results obtained.
The following diagram plots the 14 experiences assessed during the two subsequent surveys
within the CoreLabs project; it is likely however that the group of “Beginners” may include
additional 1st & now 2nd wave Living Labs that were not responding to our questionnaires.
Figure 05 Living labs status (assessment results)
The above diagram should not be intended in absolute terms, but as a reflection of the
information gathering activities from the Living Labs contacted during the course of the
evaluation study. Further documentation of past and current performances can lead to
possible changes in the composition of each “cluster” of Living Labs, and the need for that
should be stressed also in view of the harmonization and networking of existing experiences.
LIVING LABS DESIGN, STANDARDISATION AND CERTIFICATION
In light of the growing diffusion of Living Labs in European research, development and
innovation infrastructure, it is worth focusing on the performance measurement approach for
a successful take-up of Living Lab methodology.
More support is needed to the process of Living Labs design (for beginners), standardization
(for maturing Living Labs) and certification (for the mature ones).
At each of these three levels, the theoretical and empirical apparatus developed in the
referred study can prove useful, namely:
Page: 51 (61)
At the design level, to clarify what are the necessary components of a new Living Lab, and
in particular:
• the Owner
• the stakeholders
• the ICT infrastructure, solutions and tools
• the user-centric, co-creative validation approach
At the standardisation level, to analyse those operational aspects of a maturing Living Lab
that may need further improvement, and in particular:
the extent of use of the “ideal”, 5-steps trial configuration methodology
• the quality and quantity of the reported results
• the comparison of performances by means the benchmarking indicators
At the certification level, to justify the reasons why a (mature) Living Lab can also deserve
a recognition of “excellence”, with special respect to:
• the conformance to standards
• the five evaluation criteria of impact assessment
• the compliance with the “human factor” in a similar way as documented in our
evaluation questionnaire1.
LIVING LAB METHODS/TOOLS/INFRASTRUCTURES
The extreme variation and heterogeneity of infrastructures, tools and methods currently
employed and deployed by the examined Living Labs should not be considered per se as a
topic of evaluation.
However, the two following aspects should be considered:
• the need for an underlying ICT infrastructure that can ensure, not just a stable
connection from remote to the Living Labs members, but also an effective
interaction and collaboration between the users;
• the potential of collaborative methods and tools, not only for their inherent level of
innovation, but especially with respect to the efficiency (value for money) and
efficacy / effectiveness of the trials, two very important components of the overall
impact assessment exercise.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Based on an initial analysis of existing Living Labs, the Living Lab approach is proving
successful and is being adopted by many different actors of European industry and society.
The strength and potential of Living Labs and the benefits they can bring to European
research, development and innovation are very promising and merit further investment.
There is a strong need to create a standardised, networked innovation framework, that is
transferable to other RTD initiatives at a European level, whilst unifying disparate existing
ones.
Page: 52 (61)
Further work should focus at:

• The development of harmonised standards to benchmark the Living Labs
performance, based on the methodology developed in the CoreLabs project ;
• The implementation of these Living Lab standards in a perspective of quality
certification of procedures/methods/tools.
FUNDING SCHEMES
Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (2007-8), …
6.5 Application area specific approaches
FUNDING SCHEMES
DG INFSO H: (for eHealth, eInclusion, Transportation & Logistics), …
LIVING LAB THEMATIC/TOPIC SUB-NETWORKS

• Establish ENoLL sub-networks related to specific themes and topics (Health, Inclusion,
Public transportation, Tourism etc)
6.6 Regional policy approaches
TARGET OUTCOME
“Innovation can enhance regional development and a regional approach can foster
good innovation”, said Commissioner Hübner, the European Commissioner for
Regional Policy, in her common press conference of 13th of September with
Commissioner Potocnik, the European Commissioner for Research. ”The capacity of
those making decisions about their regions to turn knowledge into growth will have a
decisive impact on the future. So we need to use all means that we have to make this
positive relationship between regions and research flourish.”
The EU has complementary policies in place to support research, innovation and
entrepreneurship in Europe's regions and Member States. Providing the basis of excellent
research and innovation in Europe is the precondition for maintaining the EU model of
sustainable development. Cohesion policy can help all regions to build up research and
innovation capacity, to stimulate and support innovations in the social area, and to exchange
good practice through trans-national and inter-regional co-operation
The Commission on 13 July.2007 adopted two key proposals in order to help national and
regional authorities make the most efficient use of the €308 billion EU money that was
allocated to Cohesion policy under the December 2005 budgetary deal for 2007-2013. This
comes only days after the European Parliament vote on the package of regulations that will
govern Structural Funds operation from January 2007. The Commission invites Member
States to improve the arrangements for coordinated preparation and use of the Structural
Funds, FP7 and CIP and to include information on these in the National Reform
Programmes.
Page: 53 (61)
Complementing the regulations, the Community Strategic Guidelines are prepared by the
Commission to set out the political priorities for investments to be made at national and
regional level. Emphasizing investments in knowledge and information society, innovation,
entrepreneurship, the environment and "creating more and better jobs," the Community
Strategic Guidelines play a crucial role in "lisbonising" the future Cohesion policy. The
guide is due to be published by the end of the year.
The DG Regio communicated also by his report recently to find synergies in the EU
programmes that support regional development through research, development and
innovation: the Structural Funds, the Seventh Framework Programme for R&D (FP7) and
the Competitiveness & Innovation Programme (CIP).
EXPECTED IMPACT
To facilitate complementary funding from Community, national and regional instruments,

the Commission will regularly inform national/regional authorities on organizations
established in their respective territories which have benefited from FP7 and CIP grants.
Such information will be provided via the existing governance structures set out for each of
these instruments.
The European Commission is also planning a series of actions to help Member States
and regions make better use of funding. By the end of the year, the Commission will
produce a guide to help research organisations and businesses identify the most
appropriate source of funding.
The Commission will hold regular events bringing together the relevant stakeholders
in research, innovation and regional development to share ideas and exchange best
practice.
The Commission will report in spring 2009 on the progress made at national and regional
level in co-ordinated use of the Community's instruments and on examples of good practice
at national and regional level;
FUNDING SCHEMES
At the Community level, the Union possesses three key support instruments:
• Cohesion policy which is funded under the Structural Funds
• Cohesion Fund Research Framework Programme and
• the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme.
This Communication aims to show the synergies of design of the funding instruments of the
European research, innovation and cohesion policies. In order to increase the effectiveness of
the three instruments, these synergies should now be translated into synergies of action by
national and regional authorities as well as regional actors. The Communication takes stock
of the current situation and calls on Member States and regions to make more effective use
of the EU Research, Innovation and Cohesion policies and instruments.
The Commission will prepare by the end of 2007 a practical guide looking at the funding
opportunities through the eyes of a research institution or a company wishing to use EU
funding to undertake research and innovation activities. The guide will also examine how to
set up mechanisms at national and regional levels to foster coordinated access to the different
instruments, and explain Article 54(5) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 on the
use of funding from two different Community sources for the same set of eligible costs;
Page: 54 (61)
MAGNITUDE OF INVESTMENT NEEDED
Similarly, while Cohesion Policy does not set specific minimum allocations for RTDI, or
indeed for any sector, both the Regulations and the Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion give a
clear impetus to raise research and innovation capacity in the regions by funding productive
investment together with help for initiating strategies for R&D and innovation based on local
assets. Indicative figures are that Member States have "earmarked" around €45 billion of
cohesion policy funding for investments in research and development and innovation,
including investment in human capital. This is more than three times the amount that was
invested in these areas in the period 2000-2006.
Outside the Convergence regions, the Regional Competitiveness and Employment
objective aims at strengthening competitiveness and attractiveness, as well as
employment, through a two-fold approach. First, development programmes will help
regions to anticipate and promote economic change through innovation and the
promotion of the knowledge society, entrepreneurship, the protection of the
environment, and the improvement of their accessibility. Second, more and better
jobs will be supported by adapting the workforce and by investing in human
resources. In EU-27, a total of 168 regions will be eligible, representing 314 million
inhabitants. Within these, 13 regions which are home to a total of 19 million
inhabitants represent so-called “phasing-in” areas and are subject to special financial
allocations due to their former status as “Objective 1” regions. The amount of EUR
55 billion – of which EUR 11.4 billion is for the “phasing-in” regions – represents
just below 16% of the total allocation. Regions in 19 Member States are concerned
with this objective.
Page: 55 (61)
7 CONCLUSIONS
There are already environments for open innovation that generate strong business valid
assets, particularly in terms of globally valuable products and content. There is a significant
potential to further develop the principles of open innovation, in particular when it comes to
generation of high-value, environmentally friendly and sustainable services and societal
infrastructures.
Europe has several natural strengths for sustainable innovation such as our blend of cultures,
high education level, global awareness/trust and emerging strong infrastructure for
broadband and mobile communication. Leveraging on Europe’s natural strengths, European
Network of Living Labs will facilitate open cross-border collaboration in private-public-
people partnerships for development of methodology and systems for open human-centric
innovation.
The European Network of Living Labs strategy includes:
• New/Reinforced R&D on;
 ICT for open collaborative innovation
 Methodology and IPR for openness and competitiveness
 Principles for cross-border trust based private-public-people partnerships
 Green Innovation - Humanity-centric policies for inclusion and global sustainability
• European Network of Living Labs top level governance and strategic planning should be
supervised by European Presidencies (circulating) in order to reassure long term
independence of any singular private/public body or other power structure.
Page: 56 (61)
8 REFERENCES
8.1 Abbreviations and Terminology

CA Coordination Action (FP type of project)
CoP Communities of Practice
CORE Continuity, Openness, Realism and Empowerment of users.  section 0
DG Directorate-General (European Commission organisational entity), such as:
DG AGRI DG Agriculture and Rural Development
DG ENTR DG Enterprise and Industry
DG INFSO DG Information Society and Media
DG REGIO DG Regional Policy
DG RTD
DG Research
Domain A shared area of interest among Living Lab actors. There are different type
of areas like: Application areas (automotive, eHealth, public transportation
etc), geographical areas (Urban, Rural etc) or demographic areas (young
people, elderly people, kids in school etc).  Ref “LL Types” in section 0
EAR Experience and Application Research -> section 2.5
EC European Commission
ENoLL European Network of Living Labs /01/
FP EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development
(FP6 = 6th Framework Programme: 2003-2006; FP7 = 7th Framework
Programme: 2007-2013, etc)
Innovation An asset or asset generation process, which has a well defined and
recognized value and is an evidence of significant novelty and creativity.
IP (1) Integrated Project (FP type of project).
(2) Internet Protocol
ISV Independent Software Vendors
LL Living Lab
LL-Open Living Labs Open Innovation Community /01/
Living Lab A Living Lab is a system enabling people, users/buyers of services and
products, to take active roles as contributors and co-creators in the research,
development and innovation process.
LLP Living Labs Portfolio, including ENoLL, LL-Open, emerging LL Partner
Network, and LL related projects  section 4.1
LLP-LG Living Labs Portfolio Leadership Group  section 5.1.5
OAN Open Access Networks
OCA Open Collaborative Architectures
Page: 57 (61)
SSA Strategic Support Action (FP type of project)

UDI User-driven Innovation
User An individual person who works with, is beneficiary of or otherwise depends
on the innovation being created in a Living Lab. Users includes individuals
in many different roles along the innovation value chain such as; inventors,
developers, (re)sellers, providers, buyers, customers and end users.
8.2 Publications
[01] Aho, Cornu, Georghiou, Subirá; “Creating an Innovative Europe”, ”Report of the
Independent Expert Group on R&D and Innovation appointed following the Hampton
Court Summit”, January 2006
[02] Project CoreLabs; ”D2.1a - Best Practise Report”
Version 1.1, January 2007
[03] Project CoreLabs; ”D2.2 - Impact Analysis and Synnergy Report”
Version 1.2, September 2007
[04] Project CoreLabs; ”D5.1 - Metods&Tools, Inventory&Taxonomy”
Version 0.5, October 2006
[05] Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Delaere, S. (2005). ”Test and Experimentation Platforms For
Broadband Innovation: Examining European Practice”. In: Conference Proceedings of
16th European Regional Conference, International Telecommunications Society (ITS),
Porto, Portugal, 4-6 September, 2005.
[06] Mulder, I. (2004). ”Understanding designers, designing for understanding”. Enschede,
The Netherlands, Telematica Instituut.
[07] Mulder, I., Fahy, C., Hribernik, K., Velthausz, D., Feurstein, K., Garcia, M., Schaffers,
H., Mirijamdotter, A., & Stahlbrost, A. (in press). ”Towards harmonized methods and
tools for Living Labs”. Forthcoming in Proceedings of eChallenges 2007. Paper to be
presented at e-Challenges 2007, 24 - 26 October 2007, The Hague, The Netherlands.
[08] ISTAG report on EAR “Involving users in the development of ambient intelligence”.
IST Research Content, September 2004. http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm
[09] Tapscott, Williams. “Wikinomics”. http://www.wikinomics.com
[10] Merz, Flügge et al - SAP Research. ”The added value of Living Labs – a software
industry perspective”, Input for the Living Labs Roadmap Version: 0.2
[11] Hans Schaffers, Implementation of the Rural Living Labs: Integration, Results M1-
M12, Outlook M13-M36, 2nd review of C@R, 18th October 2007, Brussels
[12] Flügge, B., & Schmidt, A. (2006): Challenges of Interoperability and e-enabled
Collaboration scenarios in an ecosystem in forthcoming Encyclopedia of Information
Science and Technology 2nd Edition, Hershey PA, USA.
[13] Wikipedia, retrieved February 12, 2007 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Access_Network
[14] ING, (2006) “European telecoms. CityNet Amsterdam: Fibre-to-the-home is becoming
a reality”, retrieved on December 12, from
http://www.ftthcouncil.org/documents/736808.pdf.
Page: 58 (61)
[15] Oliveira, A., Caires, R., Fradinho, E., Barbosa, A., and Kalla, T., “Madeira Island
Living Lab Rural Domain”, in proceedings of e-Challenges 2006 conference,
Barcelona, 2006.
[16] Ingrid Mulder, Walter Bohle, Shela Boshomane, Lara Marques, Chris Morris, Hugo
Tempelman, & Daan Velthausz (under review). Real-world Innovation in Rural South
Africa. Submitted manuscript.
[17] Hippel, von, E. (2005): Democratizing Innovation, ISBN-10: 0262002744, The MIT
Press
8.3 Internet Places

/01/ European Network of Living Labs - Network of systems/environments for open user-
driven research, development and innovation - http://www.openlivinglabs.eu
/02/ Innocentive - Help to find competence, exchange ideas and market innovations
http://www.innocentive.com
/03/ NineSigma - Help to accelerate innovation - http://www.ninesigma.com
/04/ Open Living Labs Sweden - LivingLabs network in Sweden -
http://www.openlivinglabs.se
/05/ yet2.com - Help to identify and capture the full value of your intellectual assets -
http://www.yet2.com
Page: 59 (61)
AUTHORS SUPPLEMENT
Changes since last version (0.7a):
Chapt/Sect Change
Executive  Initial content written
Summary
1  New intro text: Sub section ”Networked environment”
2.4  New intro text: Sub Section “Open Access Networked as a key underlying
infrastructure
 Change one of the components of the infrastructure view of the
harmonization cube
3.  Chapter level 2 removed
5.2  Info about Dutch network added
6.1  Reworked with new material
6.2  Partly reworked with new material
6.3  Partly reworked with new material
7  Content established
8.  Chapter “References” restructured
8.3  Section “Internet places” added
Authors  New chapter, to be removed in final Roadmap issue (part of old chapter 8)
Supplement
3.7  Partly Reworked with new material
3.8  Partly reworked with new material (content for needs and challenges
added)
3.9  Content established
All chapters  Proof Reading and minor improvements
Writing Guidelines
All members of the Living Labs Open Innovation Community can, and are encouraged to,
submit amendments, in order to make document comprehensive and keep it up-to-date.
Initial document establishment will run Oct.-Dec.2007. During this period, new versions will
be issued every second week (normally Wednesday, odd numbered weeks). In order to be
processed in time for a new issue, submissions should be available three working days before
next issue date (Sunday evening).
Draft issues are planned for (2007): Oct.24, Nov.7 and Nov.21
First main issue is planned for 15 Dec.2007.
Page: 60 (61)
HOW TO GET ACCESS
Self-registration to the AMI@Work Living Lab Open Innovation Community is publicly

available here
http://www.ami-communities.eu [Register to join] or directly
http://www.ami-communities.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/?op=regami
and existing Ami@Work Community users that have not yet joined the Living Labs Open
Innovation Community can easily do so here:
http://www.ami-
communities.eu/bscw/bscw.cgi?op=regami&mode=get_user_details&target=communities&
home=/bscw/bscw.cgi/306354
[Log-In, join the Living Labs Community, click Back or access the link to the Roadmap:
http://www.ami-communities.eu/bscw/bscw.cgi/306354 ]
TO START
Use latest version of the document as basis (baseline) for your contribution/amendment.
Latest version is available in: http://www.ami-communities.eu/bscw/bscw.cgi/306354
HOW TO WRITE
Be short and concise. Only add information that “adds value”.

Please do not add big tables/images or many pages of information into a single section
Use the character/paragraph formats already pre-defined in this document.
(  MS Word Help on “Styles and Formatting” ).
Make your amendments in the appropriate existing chapter/section structure.
Only add a new chapter/section, if you have a strong opinion it is needed.
HOW TO COMMENT
Do not use MS Word functionality for comments. To insert a comment, please write your
comment as normal text paragraph(s) and then apply style “Comment” to the paragraph(s).
HOW TO SUBMIT
When finished, save the file in your computer with filename supplemented with your initials:
Example: LL_Roadmap_0v6a_Draft_MichaelB (Michael Boronowsky)
Submit your file into the BSCW folder structure;
http://www.ami-communities.eu/bscw/bscw.cgi/306354 - in the following way:
For each chapter/section you have amended:
- store the document in the BSCW folder/sub-folder matching the amended chapter/section
Yes! – It is OK (and desired) that you store same document file in several BSCW
folders/sub-folders, if you have amended several chapters/sections.
If you cant find a BSCW folder/subfolder, matching the chapter/section you have amended:
- Store the document in the BSCW folder nearest above (or top-folder: “Living Labs
Roadmap…”)
Page: 61 (61)

Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMPETITIVENESS

LIVING LABS ROADMAP

QUALITY STATUS: OPEN DOCUMENT VERSION: FINAL

SECT. CONTENT PAGE

1 BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL 4

1 BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL

Global trend towards open innovation

Growing industrial need for user-driven innovation and

In an array of industries, producer centred innovation is being eclipsed by user-driven

Industries understanding the benefits of Living Labs

Earlier user- involvement

2 DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES

2.1 What is a Living Lab?

2.1.1 KEY PRINCIPLES FOR LIVING LAB OPERATIONS (“CORES”)

Realism - Realistic behaviour of users and stake-holders is necessary in order to generate

2.1.2 LIVING LAB TYPES

2.2 Living Labs in industrial perspective

LL IN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE - SAP

LL IN INDUSTRIAL PERSPECTIVE - NOKIA

2.3 Six views on a Living Lab - The harmonization cube

Figure 01 Living Labs Harmonization Cube

Table 01: Implications from targeting very large user communities.

Layer of Analysis From To Implications and requirements

Current research presents a view of a sociological perspective of innovation and a change

METHODS AND TOOLS

Figure 02 Six sides of the harmonization cube

2.4 Experience and Application Research - ISTAG report

3 LIVING LABS RESULTS AND NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE

3.1 European Innovation in the Context of Lisbon Strategy for

Results from workshop Brussels, 16 Oct 2007:

3.2 Service Creation

Results from workshop - Brussels, 16 Oct 2007:

Results from workshop - Brussels, 16 Oct 2007:

3.4 User Involvement

3.5 Innovation Outcomes

3.6 Network Synergies

Figure 1 Technologically relevant layers

Infrastructure supporting Living Lab cross-border collaboration, tools and methods.

Infrastructure being created as a result of Living Lab processes.

3.7.1.1 INFRASTUCTURE PRINCIPLES

Examples and Experiences

Needs, challenges and questions:

• In order to perform advanced RTD on next generation Internet technology and

3.7.1.2 BASIC ARCHITECTURE

Figure 3 Basic Technologies of Living Lab architecture

3.7.1.3 OPEN SERVICE ARCHITECTURE

• Descriptive messages constrained by an extensible schema delivered through these

Figure 4 Living Labs architecture including SOA

In order to encourage competition through innovation and differentiation and to remove

Figure 5 Service compositions across a network of Living Labs

3.8 Methods & Tools

Examples and Experiences

Needs, challenges and questions:

3.9 Interoperability in different Domains

Experiences and Examples

4 ROADMAP ACTIONS AND MILESTONES

4.1 Today – Current status of Living Labs

4.2 Living Lab Maturity Phases

Figure 03 LL Maturity Steps

4.3 2007 second half - Portuguese Presidency - ENoLL 2nd

Nov 30 Living Lab Roadmap – 2nd version available

4.4 2008 first half - Slovenian Presidency - ENoLL 3rd wave

4.5 2008 second half - French Presidency - Completion of ENoLL

4.6 2009 first half - Czech Presidency