Do systemic collaboration and network governance matter? Living Labs beyond user-centric innovation

Edwards-Schachter1, M.; Tams2, S. & Moreno Valdés3, M. T. 1INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Spain2School of Management, University of Bath, UK2TECNALIA, Parque Tecnológico de Álava , Spain

14th March 2013

Outline

Interest & motivation

Research questions

Theoretical approaches

Methodoloy

Some preliminar results

Conclusion

4

Interest & Motivation

LL is an expanding phenomenon that increasingly attracts

the attention of practitioners, researchers and policymakers

LL are promoted by the European Policy Agenda as new

forms of support for open and user-driven innovation

management

Limits/constraints of the multilevel innovation system

approach

Knowledge generation, Innovation complexity and

interactions between users and producers

Emergence of new innovation organisational model/s?

The ENoLL waves7th.

Wave 2013

Research Questions

What is the meaning of the term LL and what distinguishes it from

other ‘innovation labs’, such as Test and Experimentation

Platforms (TEPs), SSRI (Social Spaces of Research and Innovation)

and ‘Change Labs’?

Which are the roles of people (users) in LL? Can LL be ‘incubators’

for community-driven innovation?

How do LLs enact systemic collaboration and network

governance?

Theoretical approaches

Open Innovation: the collaborative innovation paradigm

(Chesbrough, 2003, 2006)

Democratization of innovation & user innovation roles

(customer, ‘lead’ , used-centred, user-driven, user-

investor … (Von Hippel, 1986, 2005; Thomke & Von Hippel, 2002; Mirijamdotter et al.,

2006; Edvardsson et al., 2006; Bergvall-Kåreborn & Ståhlbröst, 2009)

Theoretical approaches

LL= Change Lab? New ‘modes of organizing’ innovation? The

transition management scope (Frössler et al., 2007)

Empowerment capabilities perspectives (Heiskala, 2007; Cunningham et al.,

2012; Franz et al., 2012)

LLs as territorial development instruments (the open innovation

functional region) (Santoro & Conte, 2009)

KNOWLEDGE

Agents, roles,

interaccions

New modes ‘TO ORGANISE’ the innovation process?

Process of Schumpeterian ‘creative destruction’ and learning

- Other agentes?

e.g.: social groups

- New roles

e.g.: user-investor

(Howe, 2005)

(NEW/RECOMBINED KNOWLEDGE

INNNOVATION

social innovation

(Mulgan, 2006; Franz et al., 2012; Loogma et al., 2012)

grassroots innovation

(Gupta et al., 2003; Seyfang & Smith, 2007; Smith et al., 2013)

green innovation and eco-innovation (Rennings, 2000)

frugal innovation (Prahalad, 2005; Bhatti & Ventresca,

2013)

inclusive innovation (Johnson & Dahl, 2012)

More visibility of an extended ‘nature’ (socio-technical view) of innovation and ‘hidden innovations’ ?

Theoretical approaches

LL & users’ roles

Normal or passive’ users

User integration (‘consumer view’)

User integration for detection of needs

User lead (sources of new product and/or

service ideas with high commercial potential)

‘

LL & users’ roles

User as o-producer (working with producers in jointly

generation of value)

Consumer/user as co-creators (jointly knowledge

generation, sharing knowledge within a community of

practice)

Users as investors

… in all cases users are citizens!

INS

TIT

UT

E O

F I

NN

OV

AT

ION

AN

D K

NO

WL

ED

GE

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT Methodoloy & Sample

Search of scholarly publications between 2001-2012

considering scientific journals, conference papers

proceedings, project and policy reports and books

Database elaboration (compilation of N=120 case

study). Source: ENoLL and LL’s webs

Qualitative methodology (content analysis)

http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/livinglabs

The ENoLL network

> 300 LL

INS

TIT

UT

E O

F I

NN

OV

AT

ION

AN

D K

NO

WL

ED

GE

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT LL definitions

Definition Authors

‘experimentation environments in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and in which (end) users are considered ‘co-producers’. They are at the core of current new concepts for open innovation platforms.

Ballon et al., 2005, p. 15

‘research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts’

Piersonand Lievens, 2005,

‘The Living Lab concept refers to a R&D methodology where innovations, such as services, products and application enhancements, are created and validated in collaborative, multi-contextual empirical real-world settings’

Eriksson et al. 2005

‘naturalistic environment instrumented with sensing and observational technologies and used for experimental evaluation’

Intille et al., 2006, p.350

is a user-centric innovation milieu built on every-day practice and research, with an approach that facilitates user influence in open and distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life contexts, aiming to create sustainable values’.

Bergvall-Kåreborn et al. (2009)

‘innovation projects based on open and user-centric innovation methodologies , can form collaboration networks to support small firms and other actors to engage in cross-border collaboration and to accelerate the development and acceptance of innovations’

Schaffers & Turkama

INS

TIT

UT

E O

F I

NN

OV

AT

ION

AN

D K

NO

WL

ED

GE

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT LL definitions

‘a system based on a business-citizens-government partnership which enables users to take active part in the research, development and innovation process. Products and services are developed in a real-life environment in a human centric and co-creative way, based on continuous feedback mechanisms between the developers and the users’ (ALTEC, 2009, p. 6).

ALTEC, 2009, p. 6

The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL, see www.openlivinglabs.eu) defines a Living Lab as “an open innovation environment in real-life settings in which user-driven innovation is fully integrated within the cocreation process for new services, products and societal infrastructures”.

ENoLL (2011)

‘we understand living labs as constituting a setting for collaborative innovation by offering a collaborative platform for research, development, and experimentation with product and service innovations in real-life contexts, based on specific methodologies and tools, and implemented through concrete innovation projects and community-building activities. The focus is on mature technologies and operating close to market, which indicates that acceptance and integration of the developed technologies and services are major research topics’.

Schaffers and Turkama, 2012, p. 26

‘are open innovation environments in real-life settings, in which user-driven innovation is fully integrated within the co-creation process of new services, products and societal infrastructures in a regional harmonized context (the “Open Innovation Functional Region”) catalyzing the synergy of SMEs Collaborative Networks and Virtual Professional Communities in a Public, Private, People Partnership’

Santoro & Conte, 2009, p. 1

Test and Experimentation Platform typology (Ballon et al., 2005, p. 3)

• Openess

• Public

involvement

• Commercial

maturity

• Vertical scope

• Scale

What a LL is?

What a Living Lab (LL) is?

A. Space (laboratory) where designers and researchers can observe and experiment with users

B. Methodoloy for developing products and services with user collaboration

C. Platform for collaborative innovation (environment/milieu to experiment innovation with participation of diverse agents)

D. Instrument for R&D and innovation policies

E. Territorial development model

What a LL is? The EC definition

A LL is a real-life test and experimentation environment where users and

producers co-create innovations. LLs have been characterised by the

European Commission as Public-Private-People Partnerships (PPPP) for

user-driven open innovation.

Co-Creation: co-design by users and producers

Exploration: discovering emerging usages, behaviours and market opportunities

Experimentation: implementing live scenarios within communities of users

Evaluation: assessment of concepts, products and services according to socio-ergonomic, socio-cognitive and socio-economic criteria.

Fuente: ENoLL (2011)

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

72.566.2

28.3

13.2

Users roles

Exploring governance structure

0

20

40

60

80

100

25.8 34.218.3 21.7

%

Context

Leadership (the host institution?)

%%

Some exploratory results (N=120)

Local Regional National/International0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

22.114.7

35.3

13.2 14.7

Conclusion

There is no consensus in the LL definition, existing

several approaches to the LL concept, from testbeds to

open functional regions and ‘change’ living experiments

LLs are models of innovation that include a wider range

of participants / wider constituencies, traditionally

excluded from the innovation process

Much focus on end-customer validation in testing and

experimentation and participation of users to detect

needs … but not using the full potential of user

collaboration in other stages of the innovation process .

Conclusion

Systemic collaboration , governance structures

and mechanism and the role of users as co-

creators are unclear and seem very limited

The potential role of LL as part of a broader

social development or social change agenda

remains largely unexplored

User- producer relationship,

Knowledge co-management and co-creation

Conclusion: open questions about …

‘innovation’ Labs’ raise questions about ‘networks’‘boundaries’, ‘practice’, ‘learning’ ... But also ‘identity’, ‘culture’, ‘ethics’ ...

Thank you!