structuring user involvement in ict innovation a panel based living lab approach n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 25

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


  • 92 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Structuring User Involvement in ICT-Innovation: a Panel-based Living Lab-approach' - sawyer


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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
Overview & Methodology
  • Literature research
  • Analysis of 9 Living Lab-conceptualizations
  • Construction of modified Living Lab definition
  • Assess the implications of panel-based approach
  • Illustration

Insightinto the differencesandsimilarities

betweenconceptualizationandactual

practice in Living Labs

evolution of innovation management
Evolution of Innovation Management

Ortt & van der Duin (2008)

  • Technology push: +/-‘60s
  • Market pull: +/- ‘70s
    • No user needs vs. incremental flood
  • Interactionist approach: +/- ‘80s
    • Combining both, still in-house
  • Open innovation: +/- ‘90s- ‘00s
    • More open process
    • Cooperation & interaction
  • Contextual innovation: now
    • Approach depends on contextual factors
    • More cyclical & non-linear approach
    • ‘Innofusion’ & ‘social learning’  usage!
evolution of living labs
Evolution of Living Labs

 Variety of practicesunder LL-umbrella: needforclearerconceptualization

conceptualizing from practice
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

conceptualizing from practice 2
Conceptualizingfrompractice (2)

Pierson & Lievens(2005),re-used by Shamsi(2008)

conceptualizing from practice 3
Conceptualizing from practice (3)

9 generalICT Living Lab-characteristicsbyFølstad (2008) –

bottom-up approach analyzing 32 Living Labs-papers

1 = Research into the usage context;

2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities;

3 = Co-creation with the users;

4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users;

5 = Technical testing of the innovation in a realistic context;

6 = Familiar usage context for the users;

7 = Experience and experiment in a real-world context;

8 = Medium- or long-term user studies;

9 = Large scale user studies.

conceptualizing from practice 31
Conceptualizing from practice (3)

9 generalICT Living Lab-characteristicsbyFølstad (2008) –

bottom-up approach analyzing 32 Living Labs-papers

1 = Research into the usage context;

2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities;

3 = Co-creation with the users;

4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users;

5 = Technical testing of the innovation in a realistic context;

6 = Familiar usage context for the users;

7 = Experience and experment in a real-world context;

8 = Medium- or long-term user studies;

9 = Large scale user studies.

Only 4 ‘shared’ characteristics!

 Another indication of the conceptual ambiguity of the Living Lab-concept

analysis of ll conceptualizations1
Analysis of LL-conceptualizations

2 = Discover unexpected ICT-uses and new service opportunities;

4 = Evaluation of new ICT-solutions by users;

6 = Familiar usage context for the users;

8 = Medium- or long-term user studies;

3 = Co-creation with the users;

6 = Familiar usage context for the users;

7 = Experience and experiment in a real-world context;

8 = Medium- or long-term user studies;

modified consensus definition
Modified consensus definition
  • A Living Lab-approach consists of medium- or long-term researchco-creatinginnovationswith users in a familiarandreal-world context, takinginto account the ecosystemsurrounding the innovation.
  • Missing aspect: whereto get your users?
ibbt ilab o s panel based approach
IBBT-iLab.o’s panel-based approach
  • IBBT: Flemish (virtual) research institute, incubator andinnovationintermediaryfor ICT, fundedbyFlemishgovernment
  • Mission: IBBT aims to add economic and social value through excellent research and the creation of human capital in the domain of ICT
ilab o ibbt s living lab division
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, …

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

PANEL WITH THEMATIC FOCUS!

illustration leylab living lab
Illustration: LeYLab Living Lab
  • Sept 2010
  • 11 industrial partners
  • IBBT-iLab.o as research partner
  • Fibre internet connection
leylab panel
LeYLab panel
  • 115 fibreconnections
  • 98 households
  • 43 tablets
  • 36 mini PC
  • >200 profiled panel members

32% coursesurfing

35% course SNS

58% course workingwithcomputer/tablet

3% has alreadydevelopedinnovativeapps

10% hasinnovativeideas

regarding the Internet

20% is among the first totest innovativeapps

project cloudfriends home network diagnostics app
Project CloudFriends(home networkdiagnosticsapp)

SotA-research: habits & practices network problems

Co-creation session with experts & Lead users

Test user co-creation session

Post-usage validation

1st iteration

CloudFriends-app

2nd iteration CloudFriends-app

Initial concept CloudFriends-app

conclusions
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
slide20

[E]: Dimitri.Schuurman@UGent.be

[W]:

www.mict.be

www.ibbt.be

www.leylab.be

www.mediatuin.be

results of codings n 64
Results of codings (N= 64)
  • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample
results of codings n 641
Results of codings (N= 64)
  • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample
  • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context
results of codings n 642
Results of codings (N= 64)
  • Co-creation with the users only in half of the sample
  • Familiar usage context more often than real-world context
  • Lack of research into the actual usage context
  • Lack of discovery of unexpected usage or new opportunities
results of codings n 643
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