1 / 18

User Centred Open Innovation Domain Landscape within the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)

User Centred Open Innovation Domain Landscape within the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Marc Pallot The University of Nottingham, UK Piotr Krawczyk* JAMK, Finland Anna Kivilehto ENoLL, Belgium. 4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013 Manchester (UK) 27-30/8.

natala
Download Presentation

User Centred Open Innovation Domain Landscape within the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. User Centred Open Innovation Domain Landscape within the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) Marc Pallot The University of Nottingham, UK Piotr Krawczyk* JAMK, Finland Anna Kivilehto ENoLL, Belgium 4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013 Manchester (UK) 27-30/8 JAMK University of Applied Sciences

  2. TWO-PART ENOLL SURVEY A) ENoLL Pre-Audit and Matchmaking Survey for International R&D&I Cooperation For Living Lab Managers/People in Charge of Living Labs B) ENoLL Innovation Capability, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance Self –assessment tool for Living Labs for LL Managers/People in Charge of LL and all other LL Team Members This two-part questionnaire is designed to capture your Living Lab demographic info, including if applicable your Living Lab profile and cross-border RDI interests such as innovation capability level, entrepreneurial orientation, performance, thematic domains, critical transversal themes and finally landscape dimensions. Autcomes so far: ENoLL Open Innovation Landscape ENoLL Horizon Matchmaking Initiative (interest showed by 90% from 63 responses so far) Conex Visualization for continous matchmaking Upcoming: 3-6 months – Comprehensive ENoLL Wide Survey Report (reflective practitioners) Possible future outcomes: ENoLL Wide Benchmarking/Best Practices Sharing ENoLL Matchmaking as Continuous and Systematic Process (Horizon2020, World Bank, Multinationals, Born Global SMEs, you name it)  next ICT Days ?

  3. TWO-PART ENOLL SURVEYACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work has been carried out as a result of the ENoLL wide survey. The author wishes to acknowledge the ENoLL General Assembly and Council Members for their support. The author also wishes to acknowledge his gratitude and appreciation to following ENoLL community members for their support and/or contribution during the research process: Anna Kivilehto, JarmoElukkaEskelinen, LauriTuomi, EsaAla-Uotila, Marc Pallot, Annika Sällström, Mikael Borjeson, DimitriSchuurman, Pieter Ballon,SeppoLeminen, and TuijaHirvikoski. Special thanks go to Jukka “Jups” Heikkiläfor his mentorship, comments and suggestions for improvements of the paper.

  4. Living Lab Ecosystem Source: Prof. Alvaro Duarte de Oliveira President of the European Network of Living Labs at World Bank - SDN Forum 2012 - ICT Sector Day February 23rd, 2012

  5. Living Lab Ecosystem Source: Living Labs for user-driven open innovation, January 2009 Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media Unit F4 New Infrastructure Paradigms and Experimental Facilities European Commission Chasm** Pre-Commercial Gap* ** Geoffrey A Moore: Crossing the Chasm, 1999 * MacDonald and Associates, 2004

  6. Problem / Objective PROBLEM • The lack of a well-established and up-to-date Living Lab (LL) domain landscape based on empirical evidence from an in-depth study appears to be an important issue for the open innovation community. OBJECTIVE • A clearly defined, valid, reliable and timely picture of the LL domain landscape could help to reach a broader understanding of the Living Lab phenomena. By defining the point “A” where the open innovation network is at the moment, the community can establish point “B” where it wants to be in the foreseeable future, a critical strategic issue from the management point of view.

  7. Approach/Method/Technique APPROACH • Comparison between two data sources, namely: LL publication and LL project practice to establish the level of change and to distinguish this phenomenon from the Open Innovation in its broader sense METHODS • LiteratureReview and Survey TECHNIQUES • In the bar charts the numbers represent the amount of related papers found by Google Scholar. In order to make the comparison possible a multiplication scale factor has been calculated and applied to the quantities/magnitudes assigned to project practice related concepts reported in the ENoLL survey. For example a scale factor of 2000 has been applied on the LL practice data in order to make them comparable with the publications on open innovation in a broader sense. A link to an online survey has been sent to about 320 Living Lab managers within ENoLL and 40 (now 63) responses were received by 30 April 2013, which represented a 12,5% of the entire population.

  8. Landscaping Open Innovation DIMENSIONS • Interaction mode; Innovation mode; User’s role; User’s type; Use case goal; Research type; Innovation type; Evaluation focus; Collaboration style; Research areas/concepts (see Table below) “research type” (individual users, group of users), “evaluation focus” (reliability, usability, acceptability, adoptability), “collaboration style” (structured, semi-structured, unstructured), “interaction mode” (observed subject, value creator). Source: (Pallot, 2010; Krawczyk, 2012).

  9. LL Landscape Living Lab Research Domain Landscape (Pallot et al., 2010)

  10. Living Lab Research Domain Landscape (Pallot et al., 2010) Open Innovation Research Domain Landscape based on the overall publication Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the practices Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the LL publication Findings

  11. Top 5 s LL↓ LL↓ s LL↑ Top 5 s Top 5 Top 5 Top 5 LL↑ LL↑ LL↑ Open Innovation Research Domain Landscape based on the overall publications Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the practices Comparing OI Publication with LL Practice In the comparison between areas/concepts as broadly published and as practiced within LL it appears that there are areas/concepts that are proportionally: • Quite similar: (s) Web2.0, UCD and UX; • Dissimilar (LL↑)with a very large contrast in favour of the LL practice: UC, UCI, UDI, PD, UA; • Dissimilar (LL↓)with a very large contrast in favour of the broad publication: SN, ED, SED, AR, CI; • Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the LL practice: CD • Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the broad publication: PAR The top five ( Top 5) on the LL practice side are: UX, UC, UDI, PD, Web2.0 The top five on the broad publication side are: UX, SN, Web2.0, AR, ED Findings

  12. Top 5 s s LL↓ LL↓ s LL↑ LL↑ Top 5 s Top 5 Top 5 LL↓ LL↑ Top 5 LL↑ LL↓ LL Research Domain Landscape based on the LL specific publications Living Lab Research Domain Landscape based on the practices Comparing LL Publication with LL Practice In the comparison between areas/concepts as broadly published and as practiced within LL it appears that there are areas/concepts that are proportionally: • Quite similar: (s) UX, Web2.0, UGC, ED and PD; • Dissimilar (LL↑)with a large contrast in favour of the LL practice: UC, UCD; UDI • Dissimilar (LL↓)with a very large contrast in favour of the LL publication: UA, AR; • Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the LL practice: UCI, UDI, SED • Dissimilar with a small contrast in favour of the LL publication: SN The top five ( Top 5) on the LL practice side are: UX, UC, UDI, PD, Web2.0 The top five on the broad publication side are: UA, UX, Web2.0, UDI, PD Findings

  13. Discussion and Conclusions DISCUSSION Drafting a Living Lab Domain Landscape revealed that : • the LL research community is far more advanced and active in the areas such as “User Co-creation”, “User Driven Innovation” and “Participatory Design”. • “Usability Analysis” and “Contextual Design” remain proportionally more applied in LL compared to the overall amount of publications about Open Innovation in general . • Interestingly "Experience Design" seems to emerge quite clearly out of the amount of publications, unfortunately, we missed it in the survey while it would be good to know whether it is also emerging in terms of LL practice. CONCLUSIONS • The research outcomes may well be used to help ENoLL to gain insights into LL practice and research interests with regard to possible future cross border R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across the network and perhaps innovation management (IM) community in general. • Based on individual Living Lab profiles and aggregated information, internal and external benchmarking may become possible for individual member organisations as well as the network in general. • Through this study, ENoLLmembers (living labs) could become aware of each other’s R&D&I interests as well as their expertise revealed by the project practice. ENoLL may organize and target future opportunities with more precision for possible international R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across and beyond the network boundaries.

  14. Discussion and Conclusions DISCUSSION Drafting a Living Lab Domain Landscape revealed that : • the LL research community is far more advanced and active in the areas such as “User Co-creation”, “User Driven Innovation” and “Participatory Design”. • “Usability Analysis” and “Contextual Design” remain proportionally more applied in LL compared to the overall amount of publications about Open Innovation in general . • Interestingly "Experience Design" seems to emerge quite clearly out of the amount of publications, unfortunately, we missed it in the survey while it would be good to know whether it is also emerging in terms of LL practice. CONCLUSIONS • The research outcomes may well be used to help ENoLL to gain insights into LL practice and research interests with regard to possible future cross border R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across the network and perhaps innovation management (IM) community in general. • Based on individual Living Lab profiles and aggregated information, internal and external benchmarking may become possible for individual member organisations as well as the network in general. • Through this study, ENoLLmembers (living labs) could become aware of each other’s R&D&I interests as well as their expertise revealed by the project practice. ENoLL may organize and target future opportunities with more precision for possible international R&D&I matchmaking initiatives across and beyond the network boundaries.

  15. Marc Pallot Nottingham University Business School, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, United Kingdom. E-mail: marc.pallot@nottingham.ac.uk Piotr Krawczyk* JAMK University of Applied Sciences, 40200 Jyvaskyla, Finland E-mail piotr.krawczyk@jamk.fi Anna Kivilehto ENoLL Office, Pleinlaan 9, B 1050 Brussels, Belgium E-mail: anna.kivilehto@enoll.org ThankYou!

  16. ENoLL <-> HORIZON 2020 MATCHMAKING & PITCHING 4th ENoLL Living Lab Summer School 2013 Manchester (UK) 27-30/8 JAMK University of Applied Sciences

  17. MATCHMAKING TEAM ENoLL <-> HORIZON 2020 MATCHMAKING & PITCHING Anna Kivilehto ENoLL, Belgium Ana Garcia ENoLL, Belgium Gijs van Rijn Amsterdam Economic Board, The Netherlands Adam Olszewski, Poznan Supercomputing Center, Poland Thomas Holzmann, Strascheg Center for Entrepreneurship, Germany Marc Pallot The University of Nottingham, UK PiotrKrawczyk* JAMK, Finland

  18. MATCHMAKING TEAM ENoLL <-> HORIZON 2020 MATCHMAKING & PITCHING

More Related