A living laboratory or living laboratory is a research concept that is defined as an open innovation ecosystem, which usually operates in a territory (for example, a city, a region or a campus) and that integrates concurrent research and innovation processes within the framework of a public-private collaboration.
In its simplest form it can be a simple room or apartment in which the users of a new product use it in a natural environment, allowing these users to actively participate in its design; or you can arrive at a public center with multiple experts in different disciplines collaborating to create ideas, designs and technological artifacts collaboratively.
Background
The term "living laboratory" has emerged in the context of communities researching ambient intelligence and Experiences and Applications research. The term is based on the concept of user experience[1][2][3][4][5][6] and environmental intelligence.[7][8][9].
William J. Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex (Sandy) Pentland of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are the first to explore the living laboratory concept. They argue that a living laboratory represents a user-centered research methodology for discovering, prototyping, validating, and refining complex solutions in multiple real-world and evolving contexts. Currently, there are several descriptions and definitions of living laboratories from different sources[10][11][12][13][14].
Description
A living laboratory is a user-centered, territorial, open innovation ecosystem that integrates concurrent research and innovation processes within the framework of a public-private collaboration.[15][16][17][18][19].
These processes are integrated through exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovation in ideas, scenarios, concepts and technological artifacts that are applied to real-life use cases. In these cases, user communities participate not only as subjects of study, but also as a source of creation.
This approach allows parties involved in product development to consider both the overall performance of a product or service and its potential adoption by users. This reflection can be done in the initial phase of research and development and during all elements of the life cycle of a product, from design to recycling.[20].
laboratory cities
Introduction
A living laboratory or living laboratory is a research concept that is defined as an open innovation ecosystem, which usually operates in a territory (for example, a city, a region or a campus) and that integrates concurrent research and innovation processes within the framework of a public-private collaboration.
In its simplest form it can be a simple room or apartment in which the users of a new product use it in a natural environment, allowing these users to actively participate in its design; or you can arrive at a public center with multiple experts in different disciplines collaborating to create ideas, designs and technological artifacts collaboratively.
Background
The term "living laboratory" has emerged in the context of communities researching ambient intelligence and Experiences and Applications research. The term is based on the concept of user experience[1][2][3][4][5][6] and environmental intelligence.[7][8][9].
William J. Mitchell, Kent Larson, and Alex (Sandy) Pentland of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are the first to explore the living laboratory concept. They argue that a living laboratory represents a user-centered research methodology for discovering, prototyping, validating, and refining complex solutions in multiple real-world and evolving contexts. Currently, there are several descriptions and definitions of living laboratories from different sources[10][11][12][13][14].
Description
A living laboratory is a user-centered, territorial, open innovation ecosystem that integrates concurrent research and innovation processes within the framework of a public-private collaboration.[15][16][17][18][19].
These processes are integrated through exploration, experimentation and evaluation of innovation in ideas, scenarios, concepts and technological artifacts that are applied to real-life use cases. In these cases, user communities participate not only as subjects of study, but also as a source of creation.
Other user-centered research methods already exist, such as action research, community computing, contextual design, user-centered design, participatory design, empathic design, emotional design, and other usability methods; but these methods do not sufficiently train users for co-creation in open development environments.[21][22][23][24][25][26].
More recently, Web 2.0 has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities in new product development (NPD), such as mass collaboration projects (e.g. crowdsourcing or wisdom of crowds) in a collective intelligence, creating new applications and content.
A living laboratory is different from a testbed, since its philosophy is to transform users (traditionally considered as subjects observed to test modules against requirements) into value creators, by contributing to the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related artifacts.
Therefore, a living laboratory constitutes more of an experimental environment, which could be compared to the concept of experiential learning, in which users immerse themselves in a creative social space to design and experience their own future. Living labs could also be used by policy makers and users/citizens to design, explore, experiment and refine new policies and regulations in real-world settings to assess their potential impacts before implementation.
How it works
The living laboratory process, which integrates both user-centered research and open innovation, is based on a maturation spiral where a multidisciplinary team participates in the following four main activities:[27].
• - Co-creation: Technological pressure and the existing need for an application (i.e. crowdsourcing, crowdcasting) are used to create diverse points of view, constraints and an exchange of knowledge, in order to devise new scenarios, concepts and related artifacts.
• - Exploration: involves all stakeholders, especially user communities, the initial phase of the co-creation process to discover emerging scenarios, uses and behaviors through live scenarios in real or virtual environments (e.g. virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality).
• - Experimentation: create the appropriate level of technological artifacts to experience live scenarios with a large number of users, while collecting data that will be analyzed in context during the evaluation activity.
• - Evaluation: evaluate new ideas and innovative concepts, as well as related technological artifacts, in real-life situations across various dimensions, such as socio-ergonomic, socio-cognitive and socio-economic aspects. Make observations about the potential for viral adoption of new concepts and related technological artifacts, confronting them with users' value models.
• - This work contains a translation derived from the "Living lab" of Wikipedia in English, specifically this version, published by its editors under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
• - 2012 special issue of the Technology Innovation Management Review magazine on living laboratories (open access scientific journal).
• - Eskelinen, Jarmo, García Robles, Ana, Lindy, Ilari, Marsh, Jesse, Muente-Kunigami, Arturo, Editors, 2015. Citizen-Driven Innovation – A Guidebook for City Mayors and Public Administrators. World Bank and ENoLL.
References
[1] ↑ Gaver, W.W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S. and Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty.
[2] ↑ Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes, interactions, 6 (1). 21-29.
[3] ↑ Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Larson, R. (1997). Validity and reliability of the Experience Sampling Method, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175. 526-536.
[4] ↑ Garett, J (2002). The element of user experience, Paperback.
[5] ↑ Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R. and Prescott, S. (1987). The ecology of adolescent activity and experience, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6. 281-294.
[7] ↑ Aarts, Emile H. L.; Stefano Marzano (2003). The New Everyday: Views on Ambient Intelligence. 010 Publishers. p. 46. ISBN 978-90-6450-502-7.
[8] ↑ de Ruyter, B. & Pelgrim, E. (2007). Ambient Assisted Living research in CareLab, ACM Interactions, Volume 14, Issue 4, July + August 2007.
[9] ↑ de Ruyter, B., van Loenen E. & Teeven, V. (2007). User Centered Research in ExperienceLab, European Conference, AmI 2007, Darmstadt, Germany, November 7–10, 2007. LNCS Volume 4794/2007, Springer.
[10] ↑ Niitamo, V.-P.; Kulkki, S.; Eriksson, M.; Hribernik, K. A.: 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.
[11] ↑ Pallot, M; Trousse, B.; Prinz, W.;Richir, S.; de Ruyter, B.;Rerolle, O.: Katzy, B.;Senach, B.: Living Labs Research. ECOSPACE Special Issue Newsletter 5 dedicated to Living Labs, pages 15–22. http://www.ami-communities.eu/wiki/ECOSPACE_Newsletter_No_5#Living_Labs_Research Archivado el 2 de septiembre de 2012 en Wayback Machine.: http://www.ami-communities.eu/wiki/ECOSPACE_Newsletter_No_5#Living_Labs_Research
[12] ↑ Schumacher, J.; Feurstein, K.: Living labs – a new multi-stakeholder approach to user integration, Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Systems and Applications (I-ESA'07), Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 2007.
[13] ↑ Kusiak, A., The University of Iowa, "Innovation: The Living Laboratory Perspective", Computer-Aided Design & Applications, Vol. 4, No. 6, 2007, pp 863–876.
[14] ↑ European Commission Information Society and Media, Unit F4 New Infrastructure Paradigms and Experimental Facilities. Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. An overview of the Living Labs methodology, activities and achievements. January 2009.
[15] ↑ Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32, 791–805.
[16] ↑ Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[17] ↑ Almirall, E., Wareham, J. (2011). Living Labs: Arbiters of Mid- and Ground- Level Innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(1), 2011 pp. 87-102.
[18] ↑ Bilgram, V.; Brem, A.; Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development; Systematic Identification of Lead User Harnessing Interactive and Collaborative Online-Tools, in: International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 419-458.
[20] ↑ Kusiak, A.; Tang, C.-Y.: Innovation in a requirement life-cycle framework, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, IMS’2006, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey, 2006, 61-67.
[21] ↑ ISO 13407:(1999), titled Human-centred design processes for interactive systems, is an ISO Standard providing Guidance on human-centred design activities throughout the life cycle of interactive computer-based systems.
[22] ↑ Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 1-55860-411-1.
[23] ↑ Schuler, Namioka (1997). Participatory Design, Lawrence Erlbaum 1993 and chapter 11 in Helander's Handbook of HCI, Elsevier 1997.
[24] ↑ Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design. : why we love (or hate) everyday things, NY: Basic Books.
[25] ↑ Norman, D. (1998). The Invisible Computer, Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.
This approach allows parties involved in product development to consider both the overall performance of a product or service and its potential adoption by users. This reflection can be done in the initial phase of research and development and during all elements of the life cycle of a product, from design to recycling.[20].
Other user-centered research methods already exist, such as action research, community computing, contextual design, user-centered design, participatory design, empathic design, emotional design, and other usability methods; but these methods do not sufficiently train users for co-creation in open development environments.[21][22][23][24][25][26].
More recently, Web 2.0 has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities in new product development (NPD), such as mass collaboration projects (e.g. crowdsourcing or wisdom of crowds) in a collective intelligence, creating new applications and content.
A living laboratory is different from a testbed, since its philosophy is to transform users (traditionally considered as subjects observed to test modules against requirements) into value creators, by contributing to the co-creation and exploration of emerging ideas, breakthrough scenarios, innovative concepts and related artifacts.
Therefore, a living laboratory constitutes more of an experimental environment, which could be compared to the concept of experiential learning, in which users immerse themselves in a creative social space to design and experience their own future. Living labs could also be used by policy makers and users/citizens to design, explore, experiment and refine new policies and regulations in real-world settings to assess their potential impacts before implementation.
How it works
The living laboratory process, which integrates both user-centered research and open innovation, is based on a maturation spiral where a multidisciplinary team participates in the following four main activities:[27].
• - Co-creation: Technological pressure and the existing need for an application (i.e. crowdsourcing, crowdcasting) are used to create diverse points of view, constraints and an exchange of knowledge, in order to devise new scenarios, concepts and related artifacts.
• - Exploration: involves all stakeholders, especially user communities, the initial phase of the co-creation process to discover emerging scenarios, uses and behaviors through live scenarios in real or virtual environments (e.g. virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality).
• - Experimentation: create the appropriate level of technological artifacts to experience live scenarios with a large number of users, while collecting data that will be analyzed in context during the evaluation activity.
• - Evaluation: evaluate new ideas and innovative concepts, as well as related technological artifacts, in real-life situations across various dimensions, such as socio-ergonomic, socio-cognitive and socio-economic aspects. Make observations about the potential for viral adoption of new concepts and related technological artifacts, confronting them with users' value models.
• - This work contains a translation derived from the "Living lab" of Wikipedia in English, specifically this version, published by its editors under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
• - 2012 special issue of the Technology Innovation Management Review magazine on living laboratories (open access scientific journal).
• - Eskelinen, Jarmo, García Robles, Ana, Lindy, Ilari, Marsh, Jesse, Muente-Kunigami, Arturo, Editors, 2015. Citizen-Driven Innovation – A Guidebook for City Mayors and Public Administrators. World Bank and ENoLL.
References
[1] ↑ Gaver, W.W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S. and Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty.
[2] ↑ Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes, interactions, 6 (1). 21-29.
[3] ↑ Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Larson, R. (1997). Validity and reliability of the Experience Sampling Method, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175. 526-536.
[4] ↑ Garett, J (2002). The element of user experience, Paperback.
[5] ↑ Csikszentmihalyi, M., Larson, R. and Prescott, S. (1987). The ecology of adolescent activity and experience, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 6. 281-294.
[7] ↑ Aarts, Emile H. L.; Stefano Marzano (2003). The New Everyday: Views on Ambient Intelligence. 010 Publishers. p. 46. ISBN 978-90-6450-502-7.
[8] ↑ de Ruyter, B. & Pelgrim, E. (2007). Ambient Assisted Living research in CareLab, ACM Interactions, Volume 14, Issue 4, July + August 2007.
[9] ↑ de Ruyter, B., van Loenen E. & Teeven, V. (2007). User Centered Research in ExperienceLab, European Conference, AmI 2007, Darmstadt, Germany, November 7–10, 2007. LNCS Volume 4794/2007, Springer.
[10] ↑ Niitamo, V.-P.; Kulkki, S.; Eriksson, M.; Hribernik, K. A.: 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.
[11] ↑ Pallot, M; Trousse, B.; Prinz, W.;Richir, S.; de Ruyter, B.;Rerolle, O.: Katzy, B.;Senach, B.: Living Labs Research. ECOSPACE Special Issue Newsletter 5 dedicated to Living Labs, pages 15–22. http://www.ami-communities.eu/wiki/ECOSPACE_Newsletter_No_5#Living_Labs_Research Archivado el 2 de septiembre de 2012 en Wayback Machine.: http://www.ami-communities.eu/wiki/ECOSPACE_Newsletter_No_5#Living_Labs_Research
[12] ↑ Schumacher, J.; Feurstein, K.: Living labs – a new multi-stakeholder approach to user integration, Presented at the 3rd International Conference on Interoperability of Enterprise Systems and Applications (I-ESA'07), Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, 2007.
[13] ↑ Kusiak, A., The University of Iowa, "Innovation: The Living Laboratory Perspective", Computer-Aided Design & Applications, Vol. 4, No. 6, 2007, pp 863–876.
[14] ↑ European Commission Information Society and Media, Unit F4 New Infrastructure Paradigms and Experimental Facilities. Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. An overview of the Living Labs methodology, activities and achievements. January 2009.
[15] ↑ Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32, 791–805.
[16] ↑ Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[17] ↑ Almirall, E., Wareham, J. (2011). Living Labs: Arbiters of Mid- and Ground- Level Innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 23(1), 2011 pp. 87-102.
[18] ↑ Bilgram, V.; Brem, A.; Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development; Systematic Identification of Lead User Harnessing Interactive and Collaborative Online-Tools, in: International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 419-458.
[20] ↑ Kusiak, A.; Tang, C.-Y.: Innovation in a requirement life-cycle framework, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems, IMS’2006, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey, 2006, 61-67.
[21] ↑ ISO 13407:(1999), titled Human-centred design processes for interactive systems, is an ISO Standard providing Guidance on human-centred design activities throughout the life cycle of interactive computer-based systems.
[22] ↑ Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 1-55860-411-1.
[23] ↑ Schuler, Namioka (1997). Participatory Design, Lawrence Erlbaum 1993 and chapter 11 in Helander's Handbook of HCI, Elsevier 1997.
[24] ↑ Norman, D. (2004). Emotional Design. : why we love (or hate) everyday things, NY: Basic Books.
[25] ↑ Norman, D. (1998). The Invisible Computer, Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex, and Information Appliances Are the Solution, Cambridge MA, MIT Press.