Documents

From LLiSA

Contents 1 Documents 2 Publications 3 Field Reports 4 Events 4.1 24 February 2009, Living Labs in Southern Africa Network Launch, Devon Valley Hotel, Stellenbosch 4.1.1 Presentations 5 Knowledge Commons

Documents

• Draft LLiSA project plan

Publications

• Herselman, M., Marais, M., Pitse-Boshomane, M. and Roux, K. (2009). Establishing a Living Lab Network in Southern Africa, in Proceedings of the 3rd International IDIA Development Informatics Conference 2009: Digitally Empowering Communities: Learning from Development informatics Practice. 28 October-30 October, Kruger National Park, South Africa.

• Pitse Boshomane, M., Marais, M.A. Morris, M. Roux, K., Janse van Rensburg, J. F. J., Herselman, M. E., Makan, A. and Mulder, I. (2008). Catalysing innovation: the promise of the Living Lab Approach in South Africa, in Stillman, L. and Johanson G. (eds) Proceedings of the 5th Prato Community Informatics & Development Informatics Conference 2008: ICTs for Social Inclusion: What is the Reality? 27 October-30 October, Monash Centre, Prato Italy.

Field Reports

• Fraunhofer Fokus visit Moutse and Sekhukhune LLs, facilitated by LLiSA
• SAFIPA/LLiSA event in KZN and Limpopo Provinces
• SAFIPA/LLiSA workshop in Mpumalanga Province

Events

24 February 2009, Living Labs in Southern Africa Network Launch, Devon Valley Hotel, Stellenbosch

• The Living Labs in Southern Africa (LLiSA) Network Launch Programme

Presentations

• Meraka’s role in LLiSA by Prof Marlien Herselman, Meraka Institute
• Rationale for the network by
• SAFIPA South Africa-Finland Knowledge Partnership on ICT Programme by
• Board for LLiSA - Network Launch participants, facilitated by Prof Marlien Herselman

Knowledge Commons

Series 092009: What is a living lab?

1. What moves a project into being a living lab (LL)

The aim of Living Labs is to facilitate user involvement in innovation processes, suggesting an innovation system that is human-centric/driven, in contrast to technology-centric/driven. In these processes, users are invited to participate in the innovation and development process in their own context in authentic usage situations, facilitating the users to gain deep understanding of how a new product or service will function and correlate to their context based on their own lived experience. Following that line of thoughts, the risk of developing IT systems from a technology driven approach can be reduced in favor of the user-centered approach aiming to consider users’ needs and desires in every development phase (Ståhlbröst 2008).

Close cooperation among involved stakeholders, develop product and services from the basis of what users really want and need, where the main role of the Living Lab is to engage and empower users to participate in the creation of valuable and viable assets. The interaction with users should be carried out in real-world contexts with active users aiming for innovation in close correlation with ongoing research and development processes. Thus Living Labs can be both an environment and an approach. Living Lab environment should have a good relation with, and access to, users willing to be involved in systems development processes. Any Living Lab should also have access to multi-contextual environments, as well as high-end technology and infrastructure that can support both the processes of user involvement and technology development and tests. Each Living Lab environment also needs organisation and methodologies suitable for its specific circumstances. Finally, a Living Lab needs access to a diversity of expertise in terms of different partners, since the scope of Living Lab activities often differ in character. Here, I want to stress that those involved are not obliged to be experts on Living Lab, but rather on their own specific area that can contribute to the Living Labs current activities. However, setting up a Living Lab with all the right components does not guarantee that it becomes a Living Lab; equally important are the key principles of the approaches applied in Living Lab activities, which are Continuity, Openness, Realism, Empowerment of Users, and Spontaneity (CORES) according to CoreLabs (2007).

In a project the users can become mere passive members without having to engage in the process of creating innovation also the real-life context does not have to be visible. The main criteria of the project is or can be different from a LL. The LL intent to:

• increase the understanding of occurring phenomena
• explore and evaluate new ideas, concepts and related ICT artefacts
• confront new ideas, concepts and related ICT artefacts with users' value model
• enable re-usable experiments (i.e. dataset, research protocols and methods,..)
• result in more accurate and reliable products and services
• speed-up concepts to market and promote viral adoption
• contribute to initiate potential lead markets
• contribute to bring science and innovation closer to the citizen

Whilst a project is much smaller and can be seen as a small part of a living lab.

2. How is a living lab different in Southern Africa/rural South Africa to other geographies - especially Europe Main difference is that in Europe they apply different models of innovation as they are more focussed on industry involvement in a LL from the beginning whereas in Southern Africa the focus is currently more on rural community engagement and upliftment and to keep innovation within the community and not to allow the value to go to the industry but to the community as a whole.

3. Can a SoftWare/web enabled roadmap/framework assist all living labs (future) to develop a similar DNA - thread?? (this is a difficult question to answer but it is borne out of the absolute disparity seen in the Living lab presentations at the May SAFIPA conferences) Yes I think a roadmap or framework can assist any new LL to know what and how the previous one’s have gone about in creating their key focus/theme and which business models they have applied in creating sustainability. An electronic roadmap will be to anyone’s advantage in the end.

4. What qualifies and disqualifies a Living lab (criteria) The information under question one has already provided some guidance here especially if you want to add the intent of a LL as a guide in creating criteria. There is also the following info which can assist in determining the success of a LL which can be used as criteria, and these are: Innovation: Living Labs aspire to stimulate creativity and innovation, hence its main success will be measured against quantifiable, accepted, and sustainable innovations. In the Living Lab context, three main innovation success metrics exist, the three Ps (CoreLabs 2008). - Number of peer-reviewed Publications - Number of legally held Patents - Number of Products that reach the market Collaboration: It has become obvious, since cooperation is one facilitator for innovation, that collaboration among as many participating stakeholders as possible and also with different combinations of stakeholders is an important measure of success of Living Labs. Here, it is important to focus on the maturity of the collaboration to stimulate positive outcomes of the collaboration.

Multi-contextuality: Another important success factor is the context. By introducing a multiple and diverse dimensions, users can contribute, evaluate and be evaluated in real-life situations. This perspective takes participation to a new level of multiple and merging contexts.

Sustainability: To determine long-term success, sustainability becomes an important indicator. In the Living Lab context sustainability can be measured in terms of: - Durable employment creation - Inclusion and equality issues - Competitiveness It is important to note here the significant relevance the Living Lab must offer to its location, intended audience, and stakeholders (CoreLabs 2008). Again, the context is of great importance, but in this case, it is the Living Labs context, the region and society, that must be considered and in which the Living Lab must fit.

5. How are LL's attractive to investors/corporate organisations? In the CoreLabs project (CoreLabs 2008), relevant stakeholders were identified. The relevant stakeholders who give input to Living Lab activities are:

• Academia and research organisations. These are key stakeholders in determining the efficacy of collaborative validation approaches.
• SMEs. These are considered the chief beneficiaries of the environment of increased innovation and competitiveness fostered through the Living Lab approach.
• Business Industry and Service on broader scale. These stakeholders can have an interest in market trends and business practices that emerge from close collaboration with players in that field.
• Civic Sector and End Users, These users will play a critical role in the validation environment that drives innovation.
• ICT professionals. These stakeholders have an important stake in the technical aspect and requisites for a project of this scope or nature.
• Public Partners. Their aim is to drive the development and innovation in a specific region in order to encourage enterprises and industry in order to attract specific resident groups.

The diversity of the stakeholders and the scope of the interests that they encompass demonstrate the complete cocreation approach that Living Labs embraces.

References

• CoreLabs (2008), http://www.ami-Work communities.eu/wiki/CORELABS.
• Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.-P. & Kulkki, S. 2005. State-of-the-art and good practice in the field of living labs, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services through Collaborative Networks, Milan, Italy, 2006, 349-357.
• Følstad, A. (2008). Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: A literature review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, “Special Issue on Living Labs.” Retrieved February 10, 2009 from http://www.ejov.org/.
• Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming future IT: The living lab way of user involvement. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Luleå University of Technology Department of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Division of Informatics, Finland.