A fourfold typology of living labs: an empirical investigation amongst the ENoLL community

Living Labs can be seen as a means to structure user involvement in innovation processes. However, in this rather young research domain, there is no consensus yet regarding supporting theories and frameworks. This has resulted in a wide variety of projects and approaches being called ‘Living Labs’, which leaves a clear conceptualization and definition a task in progress. Within this research paper we propose a fourfold categorization of Living Labs based on a literature review and validated by an empirical investigation of the characteristics of 64 ICT Living Labs from the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). The four types are Living Labs for collaboration and knowledge support activities, original ‘American’ Living Labs, Living Labs as extension to testbeds and Living Labs that support context research and co-creation with users

Analogue switch-off vs digital switch-on: rethinking policy strategies in the digital television era

In the last few decades, the traditional television landscape has come under pressure and the diffusion of digital television (DTV) services emerged as a hot issue. Especially for policy makers, access to DTV is considered a key element in the further development of the information society. Facilitating equal access for all to the new possibilities offered by digital television should be the central objective. In this context, policy makers are confronted with various challenges: How can they facilitate a smooth transition from analogue to digital terrestrial television? How should they handle digital dividend issues? In dealing with these topics, this article stresses the importance of a user-oriented approach

Bringing troubled water: quality of experience in a mobile media context

The ICT environment went through notable changes, which have had an irreversible and strong influence on both ICT innovation processes and the role of end-users. In this context, technology developers are increasingly expected to take users’ experiences with technology into account during the process of developing applications or frameworks. As technology is more and more embedded in users’ daily lives, they seek out those personalized values to satisfy their own, situational needs. As a result, a thorough insight in users’ expectations and experiences at various levels (both explicit and more latent) and in different contexts (eg. mobile) has become a crucial determinant for the successful development, introduction and adoption of new ICTs. To this end, our paper focuses on the increased importance of Quality of Experience (QoE). It provides a conceptual model for QoE and furthermore discusses the prevalent gap that still exists between QoE and Quality of Service (QoS). Our main objective is to present a new methodology for correlating user experience to QoS parameters. This methodology was tested in the context of an exploratory interdisciplinary study on QoE-measurement. This new approach goes beyond QoS-parameters and aims to also grasp the social and contextual dimensions of users’ experiences

Interfaces of the Agriculture 4.0

The introduction of information technologies in the environmental field is impacting and changing even a traditional sector like agriculture. Nevertheless, Agriculture 4.0 and data-driven decisions should meet user needs and expectations. The paper presents a broad theoretical overview, discussing both the strategic role of design applied to Agri-tech and the issue of User Interface and Interaction as enabling tools in the field. In particular, the paper suggests to rethink the HCD approach, moving on a Human-Decentered Design approach that put together user-technology-environment and the importance of the role of calm technologies as a way to place the farmer, not as a final target and passive spectator, but as an active part of the process to aim the process of mitigation, appropriation from a traditional cultivation method to the 4.0 one

Innovation from user experience in Living Labs: revisiting the ‘innovation factory’-concept with a panel-based and user-centered approach

This paper focuses on the problem of facilitating sustainable innovation practices with a user-centered approach. We do so by revisiting the knowledge-brokering cycle and Hargadon and Sutton’s ideas on building an ‘innovation factory’ within the light of current Living Lab-practices. Based on theoretical as well as practical evidence from a case study analysis of the LeYLab-Living Lab, it is argued that Living Labs with a panel-based approach can act as innovation intermediaries where innovation takes shape through actual user experience in real-life environments, facilitating all four stages within the knowledge-brokering cycle. This finding is also in line with the recently emerging Quadruple Helix-model for innovation, stressing the crucial role of the end-user as a stakeholder throughout the whole innovation process

Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experience

Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are public spaces where local authorities engage citizens to develop innovative urban services. Their strength and popularity stem from a methodology based on open innovation, experimentation, and citizen engagement. Although the ULL methodology is supposed to largely adopt a co-production approach, connections between the two have not yet been thoroughly investigated. The paper seeks to fill this gap by examining through a qualitative analysis three experiences of ULLs made in Amsterdam, Boston and Turin. Specifically, the paper aims to assess whether ULLs can be really conceptualised as a form of co-production and, if so, which elements characterised them as innovative in comparison to \u2018mainstreaming\u2019 co-production; Then it analyses benefits and drawbacks related to their implementation

Innovation is created by humans, not by systems: an exploration of user involvement in living labs: user motivation versus lead user criteria

The past few years companies have become more interested in involving users during the production process of their products. On the other hand, a group of users started to innovate on their own. Users also became interested in becoming part of the production processes themselves. Certain users experience certain needs earlier than others and they enjoy finding solutions for these needs. They are called Lead Users (von Hippel, 2005). Living Labs are one possibility for users to realize this interest to innovate. iLab.o, the Living Lab division of iMinds, has been organizing Living Lab research since 2009. To get a better view on the motivations of this panel, we analyzed the behavior of the involved users from September 2009 to December 2013. We tried to detect Lead Users, but it is not obvious to define people as Lead Users because of the different used definitions. Instead, we divided this panel into three types of users based on the intensity of their involvement: passive, sleeping and active users. A small group of users is extremely active and are been defined as “alpha users”. Based on interviews with these alpha users in November and December 2013, a better view on their motivations to keep participating in Living Lab research was made. In this paper we focus on the participation of these different user types in one research phase type within Living Lab research, more specifically co-creation sessions. By means of a comparative case study, we tried to get a better understanding of the behavior of the different user types. It became clear that in order to keep the panel involved it is important to focus on community building