1 / 25

Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach

Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach. Dimitri Schuurman Bram Lievens Lieven De Marez Pieter Ballon. Overview & Methodology. Literature research Analysis of 9 Living Lab- conceptualizations Construction of modified Living Lab definition

sawyer
Download Presentation

Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach

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. Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach Dimitri Schuurman Bram Lievens Lieven De Marez Pieter Ballon

  2. Overview & Methodology • Literature research • Analysis of 9 Living Lab-conceptualizations • Construction of modified Living Lab definition • Assess the implications of panel-based approach • Illustration Insightinto the differencesandsimilarities betweenconceptualizationandactual practice in Living Labs

  3. Evolution of Innovation Management Ortt & van der Duin (2008) • Technology push: +/-‘60s • Market pull: +/- ‘70s • No user needs vs. incremental flood • Interactionist approach: +/- ‘80s • Combining both, still in-house • Open innovation: +/- ‘90s- ‘00s • More open process • Cooperation & interaction • Contextual innovation: now • Approach depends on contextual factors • More cyclical & non-linear approach • ‘Innofusion’ & ‘social learning’  usage!

  4. Evolution of Living Labs  Variety of practicesunder LL-umbrella: needforclearerconceptualization

  5. Conceptualizingfrompractice • Living Labs as Test andExperimentation Platform • Commercial maturitylowerthan in market & societal pilots • Focus less on technicaltestingthan in field trials & testbeds • Living Labs as open innovation platforms Ballon et al., 2007

  6. Conceptualizingfrompractice (2) Pierson & Lievens(2005),re-used by Shamsi(2008)

  7. Conceptualizing from practice (3) 9 generalICT Living Lab-characteristicsbyFølstad (2008) – bottom-up approach analyzing 32 Living Labs-papers 1 = Research into the usage context; 2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities; 3 = Co-creation with the users; 4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users; 5 = Technical testing of the innovation in a realistic context; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 7 = Experience and experiment in a real-world context; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies; 9 = Large scale user studies.

  8. Conceptualizing from practice (3) 9 generalICT Living Lab-characteristicsbyFølstad (2008) – bottom-up approach analyzing 32 Living Labs-papers 1 = Research into the usage context; 2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities; 3 = Co-creation with the users; 4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users; 5 = Technical testing of the innovation in a realistic context; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 7 = Experience and experment in a real-world context; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies; 9 = Large scale user studies. Only 4 ‘shared’ characteristics!  Another indication of the conceptual ambiguity of the Living Lab-concept

  9. Analysis of LL-conceptualizations

  10. Analysis of LL-conceptualizations 2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities; 4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies; 3 = Co-creation with the users; 6 = Familiar usage context for the users; 7 = Experience and experiment in a real-world context; 8 = Medium- or long-term user studies;

  11. Modified consensus definition • A Living Lab-approach consists of medium- or long-term researchco-creatinginnovationswith users in a familiarandreal-world context, takinginto account the ecosystemsurrounding the innovation. • Missing aspect: whereto get your users?

  12. IBBT-iLab.o’s panel-based approach • IBBT: Flemish (virtual) research institute, incubator andinnovationintermediaryfor ICT, fundedbyFlemishgovernment • Mission: IBBT aims to add economic and social value through excellent research and the creation of human capital in the domain of ICT

  13. iLab.o: IBBT’s Living Lab-division A toolbox for any project type: ICON, Living Lab, CIP, FP7, … A toolbox for any project type: ICON, Living Lab, CIP, FP7, …

  14. The iLab.oLiving Lab-approach

  15. Addedvalue of panel based-approach • 1) contextualization: through the longitudinal data the panel generates, a permanent ‘contextualization’ is taking place for the surveyed topics • 2) selection: the identification test-users is only a matter of selecting the right profiles out of the panel database. This avoids the time- and budget consuming surveying and recruiting of relevant user profiles. • 3) concretization: a lot of data already present, so only a brief extra intake survey is required • 4) implementation: panel members have ‘opted in’, panel management ensures practical organisation of research activities & device handling, panel manager as SPOC • 5) feedback: all data added with existing panel data to further add to profile building PANEL WITH THEMATIC FOCUS!

  16. Illustration: LeYLab Living Lab • Sept 2010 • 11 industrial partners • IBBT-iLab.o as research partner • Fibre internet connection

  17. LeYLab panel • 115 fibreconnections • 98 households • 43 tablets • 36 mini PC • >200 profiled panel members 32% coursesurfing 35% course SNS 58% course workingwithcomputer/tablet 3% has alreadydevelopedinnovativeapps 10% hasinnovativeideas regarding the Internet 20% is among the first totest innovativeapps

  18. Project CloudFriends(home networkdiagnosticsapp) SotA-research: habits & practices network problems Co-creation session with experts & Lead users Test user co-creation session Post-usage validation 1st iteration CloudFriends-app 2nd iteration CloudFriends-app Initial concept CloudFriends-app

  19. Conclusions • Living Labs as promisinginnovationmethodology, involving the end-user as key stakeholder through co-creation • Still a large variety in definitionsand concrete set-ups of Living Labs • Added-value of a panel-based approach, in practiceespeciallyforentrepeneurs & start-ups

  20. [E]: Dimitri.Schuurman@UGent.be [W]: www.mict.be www.ibbt.be www.leylab.be www.mediatuin.be

  21. Framework for customer characteristics

  22. Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample

  23. Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context

  24. Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context • Lack of research into the actual usage context • Lack of discovery of unexpected usage or new opportunities

  25. Results of codings (N= 64) • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context • Lack of research into the actual usage context • Lack of discovery of unexpected usage or new opportunities • Medium- or long term is a given, large scale is not

More Related