Apollon - A Catalogue of State-Of-The-Art Concepts, Existing Tools and Lessons Learned For Crossborder Living Lab Networks

DELIVERABLE

Project Acronym: APOLLON
Grant Agreement number: 250516
Project Title: Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks
Deliverable 1.1
A Catalogue of state-of-the-art concepts, existing tools and
lessons learned for crossborder Living Lab networks
Revision: Final
Authors:
Anna Ståhlbröst (LTU)

Bram Lievens (IBBT)
Christian Merz (SAP AG)
Petra Turkama (Aalto University)

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme
Dissemination Level
P Public X
C Confidential, only for members of the consortium and the Commission Services

Apollon – Deliverable 1.1

The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is
given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the
information at its sole risk and liability.

Statement of originality:
This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated
otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of
others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both.
2 Final version, 21/05/2010


Table of Contents
1. Summary........................................................................................................................................4
2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................7
3. Networking theories..................................................................................................................9
4. Living Lab networks ............................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Towards networks of Living Labs .................................................................................................11
4.2 Living Lab networks – definition and scope ..............................................................................13
4.3 Current networks of Living Labs ...................................................................................................14
4.4 Lessons learned...................................................................................................................................18
4.5 SWOT analysis LL networks ............................................................................................................20
4.6 Creating the Apollon Methodology Framework .......................................................................21
5. Categorization of the APOLLON Methodology Framework ....................................... 22
5.1 Elements of the Apollon Methodology Framework.................................................................22
5.2 Apollon methodology categories...................................................................................................24
5.2.1 Connect.............................................................................................................................................................. 24
5.2.2 Set Boundaries and engage....................................................................................................................... 25
5.2.3 Support and govern ..................................................................................................................................... 26
5.2.4 Manage and track.......................................................................................................................................... 27
5.3 Summary................................................................................................................................................28
6. SOTA analysis – methodology.............................................................................................. 28
7. Catalogue of State of the Art................................................................................................. 30
7.1 Connect...................................................................................................................................................30
7.2 Set boundaries and engage..............................................................................................................36
7.3 Support and Govern ...........................................................................................................................46
7.4 Manage and Track ..............................................................................................................................59
8. Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 67
9. References.................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix A - SOTA interview guideline...................................................................................... 69


1. Summary

In October 2006 the Helsinki Manifesto was issued stating for the first time the need for
networked Living Labs as an instrument to facilitate innovation and (economic) growth.
Consequently a European Network of Living Labs has been proposed that act as “a cross-
regional, cross-national and pre-market network, which creates multi-stakeholder co-operation
models for public-private citizen-partnerships (PPCPs).”
In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which
are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. These Living Labs do not only
differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach.
Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on the European, the regional, and the
national levels which mainly exchange high-level principles and best practices for individual
Living Lab set-up and implementation.
The next step that is needed for those Living Labs to move from awareness creation to true
collaboration, is to implement a more detailed analysis of Europe-wide user, market and
technology characteristics and an economically more valuable mode of experimentation, by
networking, comparing and scaling up cross-border Living lab networks. It is of particular
importance to facilitate the participation of SMEs including micro-entrepreneurs both as users
and suppliers in this process. The establishment of further networked systems for open user-
driven research, development and innovation was also clearly recommended by the Living Lab
portfolio Leadership group in its Living Lab roadmap 2007-2010.1
When looking to the criteria for becoming a member of LL networks it’s remarkable that there
are no specific criteria related to the network aspect itself. Besides the fact that the Living Labs
need to have international networking expertise no criteria are stated with regard to collaboration,
common procedures etc. . Because of this high level approach and lack of clear collaboration
criteria, it is difficult for the network to move beyond being just a cluster of Living Labs. Also
the network does not impose any rules on common tools or methods to be used when becoming a
member.
When looking at the various initiatives in networking Living Labs, we notice that the main
objectives are similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The exchange of
best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network followed by
harmonizing an integrating tools and methods between the partners. Finally, a third objective that
the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that between partners of the
various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a larger scale is set-up
and executed.

1 http://www.tssg.org/archives/2007/03/corelabs.html

However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are still in the exploratory phase.
When the network has produced concrete output, it is still more a gathering of what is available
or possible within (each of) the Living labs. For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has
created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu), this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible
user centred research methods that can be applied, than a common research framework or toolset
that is applied in each of the Living Labs.
The potential as well as simultaneously the challenge of Living Labs or other collaborative
innovation network research is the fact that the phenomena can be approached from various
angles with various research methodologies, disciplines and theoretical foundations. In this
context, we have considered open models as the most appropriate theoretical foundations for the
APOLLON work. This approach relates to all the approaches labelled differently such as open
innovation, open networks, open platforms, open business models (Munsch 2009).
The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations:
1. New ideas can stem from a diversity of partners which represents more perspectives than
would have been possible otherwise
2. Business and financial risk can be alleviated by the inclusion of more partners and a
broader market scale can be achieved by joining forces
3. Time to market is boosted by contributions made by other contributors in the ecosystem,
However, taking an open approach also involve issues which can be categorized into three
themes: culture, contract and competition (Munsch 2009). Organizations need to carefully assess
the culture of their partners to ensure that they can work effectively with each other for a longer
period of time. Important to note is that partnering require mutual benefits.
Living Lab networks can be defined as managed collaboration networks (as opposite to self-
organizing networks), which feature internal transparency and direct communication. Members
of a network collaborate and share knowledge directly with each other, rather than through
hierarchies. They come together with a shared vision because they are intrinsically motivated to
do so and seek to collaborate in some way to advance an idea or a concept.
When we look at who has initiated the network it has mostly been a bottom-up process. The
various Living Labs themselves have organised and set-up the network in place. The main
motivation for doing this was a certain need that they encountered to get to know the other
initiatives as well as the need for “lessons learned” in order to grow themselves.
Based on the current state of the art knowledge APOLLON creates a harmonized methodology
for creating, operating, managing and evaluating living lab networks. The consortium develops a
scalable framework for systematic living lab network initiation, support and management for the
thematic Living Lab networks in APOLLON project, as well as for ENoLL and other Living Lab
networks in the future.

We show how organizations leverage their expertise and combine customers and suppliers into a
seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader cross-
border ecosystem of Living Lab networks.
The proposed categorization for Living Lab network creation and management will apply for
various layers, and serve the living lab community at large. The APOLLON methodology focuses
especially on Living Lab network level and cross-border collaboration, rather than on single
Living Lab level, which in itself is already a collaborative network as such.
There are several alternative approaches to network methodology creation, ranging from stages of
life cycle approach to layers of interaction, categorization by use cases, phases of development or
Living Lab maturity, like the description of a Living Lab life cycle approach developed based on
project C@R.
Building on this model, in this context, we have selected a holistic Living Lab management
approach, and divided Living Lab management into four categories:
1. Connect - relates to activities and considerations in the start up phase of collaboration. In
this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well as the domain and
engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are important and
motivating for people and can bring in new members.
2. Set Boundaries and Engage - needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well
as negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this
process is measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for
individual members. Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing
national and European networks need to be defined.
3. Support and Govern - includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational work
within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and
field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network
will provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations.
4. Manage and Track - refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and
impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the
network engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including
customer, society & people and performance related results. Performance evaluation is
closely related to the network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living
Labs can have very different objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to
policy implications.
The objective of the categorization is to establish a common approach to methodology, and
divide the related tasks and elements to easily managed entities. The proposed categorization will
be applied in all APOLLON WP1 (Methodology and Tools) related tasks (State of the art,
methodology framework, collaboration model, evaluation framework, future recommendations
and roadmap).

This not only ensures a common approach and understanding across different tasks and work
packages but mainly guarantees consistent findings that can be integrated into the bigger picture
which ultimately manifests with the validated and tested APOLLON methodology framework at
the end of the project.
The categorization along the lifecycle of cross border Living Lab networks is therefore also
reflected in the questionnaire that have been designed for semi-structured interviews within and
outside of the APOLLON consortium. Parts of the questions have not been strictly applied but
served as guidelines for an open discussion with the interviewee. As the interviewees have been
chosen according to their proven record of experience and expertise within the European Living
Lab community and network, several inputs have been captured that not directly corresponds
with one of the questions but go beyond the initially requested information. One of the main
targets of the interviews was to capture qualitative information on existing Living Lab
networking initiatives in order to derive a rating of how successful methodologies, tools or
organizational structures have been applied in real life.
To a certain extent relevant methodologies, tools, governance and organizational structures are
existing applicable at all stages of the LL networking lifecycle. They range e.g. from
technological solutions (e.g. reference architectures for Collaborative Working Environments
(CWEs), collaboration tools) to common frameworks and models (e.g. Monitoring &
Assessment, roles & responsibilities).
The Support & Govern category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art.
Obviously the need to co-innovate across 2 or more Living Labs has brought up initial
methodologies and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging
to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methodologies
and tools has not been investigated systematically and offer big potential for the APOLLON
consortium to take them to the next level.
In general the potential of available methodologies & tools and structures adding value to
participating Living Labs of a synergetic network seems to be huge. In any case, no one of the
interviewed experts have provided final answers on the constitution of a methodological
framework for cross border Living Lab networks and further research on the ground need to be
invested.
A simple SWOT analysis indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methodologies
and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across 2 or more Living
Labs. Therefore extensive experience with some promising methods and tools are missing despite
of their obvious applicability in a network of cross border Living Labs.
At least some of the available Living Lab methods and tools have been well applied in real life on
individual level but not in a networking context. The modification of these methods and tools for
networking purposes offers a good starting point for the APOLLON methodology framework.

2. Introduction


The Living Labs are an instrument through which the innovation process can be improved by
establishing business-citizens-government partnerships that enable users to participate in R&D at
an early stage. European Living Labs are at the forefront of defining and putting into practice this
new approach within the context of their local ecosystem. Currently, Europe-wide federation and
networking between Living Labs are being or have been setup, in order to exchange information,
looking at harmonizing best practices for setting up and conducting individual Living Lab
research. However the Living Labs in those networks are still operating and collaborating across
Europe at an individual project level.
It is commonly thought that strongly increased cross-border Living Lab collaboration would
potentially yield huge added value for Europe, as it enables firms, most particularly SMEs, to
participate in domain-specific innovation ecosystems at a European scale, without losing sight of
local circumstances and idiosyncrasies. Therefore, it is needed that these networks of Living labs
are working on a more intensive, permanent and scalable collaboration, using common
methodologies, tools and sustainable organizational structures for cross-border domain-specific
Living Lab networks.
As part of APOLLON, work package 1 deals with the development of a horizontal methodology
that enables and supports the ramp up and operation of a cross-border network of Living Labs.
The APOLLON methodology will build on best practices and lessons learned from earlier Living
Lab network initiatives and the vertical domain-specific Living Lab networks set-up as the four
experiments within APOLLON. It will consist of an adaptable framework for planning,
specifying, building, and implementing practical and theoretical aspects of Living Lab networks.
The APOLLON methodology and tool set aims at providing support and help for sharing and
harmonizing Living Lab platforms between thematic cross-border clusters of European Living
Labs as far as relevant with the practical realities of the available technologies, actors and
business environments. APOLLON methodology will thus contribute to finding synergies
between the actors, scaling up lead markets, facilitating strategic partnerships between innovative
SMEs and micro-entrepreneurs, orchestrating systematic RDI processes and stimulating cross-
border open innovation in Europe.
The APOLLON methodology will address interoperability challenges in cross-border Living

Labs networks through different levels. First, on a technological level APOLLON will investigate
to what extent a common platform or technology will help to solve these interoperability
challenges. Second, on the organizational and regulatory policy level APOLLON will investigate
to what extent the eco-systems of each Living Lab can and should be similar. Finally, on the
research level the project will look at to what extent common tools and techniques are required
for cross-border networks.
This deliverable provides a catalogue of state of the art governance structures and ecosystem set
ups, tools and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab projects (as far as they are of relevance for

cross-border networks of Living Labs), existing Living Lab network initiatives, as well as from
the thematic Living Lab networks within the APOLLON project.
The document is structured as follows:
Chapter 1 and 2 provide a summary and introduction respectively.
Chapter 3 deals with networking theories and gives some theoretical background information on
open innovation environments and principal considerations regarding networking initiatives.
Chapter 4 focuses on Living Lab networks and their relevance and scope for APOLLON
purposes.
In chapter 5 an initial categorization along the lifecycle of LL networks is proposed that will be
applied to this state of the art analysis, to baseline studies for M&A purposes, to the requirements
gathering from the vertical experiments and to the APOLLON methodology framework.
Chapter 6 reflects on the methodology being applied to derive the findings of this state of the art
analysis. It states the general approach, chosen initiatives and projects, conducted expert
interviews and the common validation and consolidation of the findings.
Chapter 7 lists the main findings of this state of the art analysis in table style indicating the
APOLLON categorization, concept category, the finding’s origin, a description of main results, a
SWOT analysis, references and the relevance for the APOLLON methodology framework.
Chapter 8 comprises the main conclusion of this SOTA analysis and tries to position this
deliverable with regards to the upcoming future work within APOLLON.
3. Networking theories
It is widely recognized that the autonomous activities of single organizations cannot produce
those radical, cross-disciplinary and architectural innovations that would sufficiently address the
increasingly sophisticated needs of users (Normann & Ramírez 1998; Prahalad & Ramaswamy
2004). Globalization, democratization of knowledge and extensive utilization of developed
information and communication technologies have enabled users to demonstrate increased power
and influence over the content of available products and services (Gassmann, 2006).
Consequently, the drivers for innovation have changed, now emphasizing increasingly value
adding co-creation with customers, accessing and combining globally dispersed knowledge using
advanced ICT solutions, and forming collaborative networks and partnerships with new types of
dynamics between public sector, large companies and entrepreneurs (Jorgen Rosted, 2009).
The potential as well as simultaneously the challenge of Living Lab or other collaborative
innovation network research is the fact that the phenomena can be approached from various

angles with various research methodologies, disciplines and theoretical foundations. In this
context, we have considered open models as the most appropriate theoretical foundations for
APOLLON work. This approach relates to all the approaches labeled in differently such as open
innovation, open networks, open platforms, open business models (Munsch 2009). A common
theme for these open approaches is to open up companies and to advocate establishing a broad
ecosystem whereby external parties are much more engaged and involved in conceptualization
and implementation of innovative new ideas in a blend of formal and informal matters.
The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations:
1. New ideas can stem from a diversity of partners which represents more perspectives than
would have been possible otherwise
2. Business and financial risk can be alleviated by the inclusion of more partners and a
broader market scale can be achieved by joining forces
3. Time to market is boosted by contributions made by other contributors in the ecosystem,
However, taking an open approach also involve issues which can be categorized into three
themes: culture, contract and competition (Munsch 2009).
1. Culture: In this theme, elements such as different perspectives on speed, resource

commitment, organizational changes, and different terminology.
a. Speed: When an open approach is applied with more engaged partners, the
complexity increases.
b. Priorities: The more partners working together, the more diverse priorities and
resource commitments need to be handled.
c. Common understanding: The open approach also requires coordination about
terminology between the different partners. Partners from different cultural (both
organizational and national) contexts. If this is not addressed, serious technical
issues may arise, hence, appropriate time and effort needs to be devoted to create a
common language for effective communication.
2. Contract: Contrary to what the term “open” may imply, detailed agreements that takes
into account complexity, intellectual property rights and compliances need to be
developed.
a. Agreements: Since there is much uncertainty when two, or more, partners decide
to join forces to pursue for example a new idea, agreements can be very complex.
Issues that need to be handled here are governance, ownership rights, fields of use,
exclusivity, resource commitment and potential timing, intellectual property,
termination conditions and rights and other contractual conditions.
b. Intellectual property: Especially in the area of creating new technology and
innovations by implementing an open model, it is important to consider the
difficulty of intellectual property rights. It is often unclear what is, or can be,
created in these constellations. Hence, it is important to document in detail pre-

existing properties and how new co-created properties will be owned. Also,
splitting fields of use needs to be articulated.
c. Compliance: In networks, it is quite common that when two or more partners are
involved in the process of bringing an innovation to market, some might have a
greater vested interested in its success. To support this process a contract is
helpful, but difficult to develop.
3. Competition: In this category it is important to consider, prior to engaging in open
approaches, what long-term competitive implications there might be included in the open
networking approach. These competitive implications can be related to the direct
competition between two or more partners or more indirectly to the more structural
changes which might occur.
a. Direct competition: Migration to direct competition is the form more frequently
observed. In these circumstances, two or more parties come together with
complementary capabilities creating or enabling a new technology. While doing
so, competencies are transferred between the partners. Important to note here, is
that the intentions and interests might be unclear in the beginning or they might
change during the process.
b. Structural shift competition: An alternative form of competition that can evolve is
one where the structural nature of the value chain is changed. Hence, evaluating
and choosing one’s partners carefully when entering into an open model is vital.
This evaluation should include not only what the partner might bring, but also its
likelihood of moving into your market. Also, think about “what if” we were
successful with our intentions.
Based on the described issues that needs to be handled when an open and networking approach is
applied it is important to remember that open models are not a panacea. Organisations need to
carefully assess the culture of their partners to ensure that they can work effectively with each
other for a longer period of time (Munsch 2009). Important to note is that partnering require
mutual benefits.
4. Living Lab networks

4.1 Towards networks of Living Labs

In October 2006, as a result of the Networked Business and Government: ‘Something Real for
the Lisbon Strategy’ – which was organized during the Finnish Presidency - the Helsinki
Manifesto was issued. Here, for the first time the need for networked Living Labs as instrument
to facilitate innovation and (economic) growth was officially presented.

Consequently an European Network of Living Labs has been proposed that act as “a cross-
regional, cross-national and pre-market network, which creates multi-stakeholder co-operation
models for public-private citizen-partnerships (PPCPs).”
By so, Europe emphasize on the importance of an open, user-centric and networked innovation
environment in Europe. As a first step the creation of a European-wide network of Living Labs
has been facilitated through which “emerging knowledge-intensive services, businesses, markets,
technologies and even industries for jobs and growth can be developed, tested and validated.”2
The establishment of the European Network of Living Labs is an outcome of the Corelabs
project. One of the objectives was to establish a “systematic and organized approach that will
ensure that common methodologies and tools are developed across Europe”. The goal was that
these tools and methods, used in the various Living Labs would support and facilitate innovation
in and across the different Living Labs in order to have a global reach.
In order to create such a network that could address these objectives, different (technical)
requirements need to be addressed. These requirements are structured into the six key areas that
each reflects a basic component that on the level of the network itself needs to be addressed and
organized:3
1. Presence / discovery: partners have to be able to 1. Identify other partners and 2. Check
the status in terms of resources, operations as well as availability for collaboration
2. Communication and end-to-end connectivity: The Living Labs as well as the various
partners within each Living Lab need to have access to sufficient and compatible
communication and collaboration tools (e.g. Video conf call system) that facilitates the
cooperation between them
3. Interoperability: The Living Labs should use standard protocols in order to establish
interoperability across the various, heterogeneous platforms. Also the applications,
subject of evaluation in these Living labs, should meet up with certain standards, so that
the transfer of them is easy and efficient. The use of Open Standards is one way of
achieving this
4. Accessibility: A key element within the Living Lab is their open nature. The network
should also facilitate this open access to all Living labs that are member of this network.
The access to and within the network could be enhanced via a wider selection of multi-
modal interfaces and devices as well as network connectivity. This should be guaranteed
and seamless
5. Security: With regard to security, the network should ensure that unauthorized access,
replication, or modification of information as well as issues arising from potential
alteration of data by unauthorized third parties is prevented. This is necessary to built up
and guarantee trust between the partners.
6. Knowledge / information management: One of the main elements within the network is
the sharing of information and knowledge. The network has to enable and support the
exchange of information through various knowledge interfaces.

2
Helsinki Manifest. 2006
3
The key areas were defined within the Corelabs project. See deliverable 3.2 “Technological & mass customization aspects”of
the Corelabs project.

In order to meet up these requirements, the network of Living Labs should, according to the
Corelabs study address five technological and mass customization aspects (see table 1). However,
when looking at the current state of the different networks in place we notice that these elements
are only very limited being tackled on the level of the network itself. Often it is due to the
structure of the Living Lab and the infrastructure itself within those Living Labs that some of
these aspects are being addressed. For example, by using standard internet protocols in their
network infrastructure, the various Living labs are offering a sort of open service architecture.
But in none of the existing networks of Living Labs there are specific guidelines, protocols in
place that would facilitate this. An interesting case with regard to this are testbeds. Within the
network of testbeds (examples are PanLab and OneLab) the objective is to create a common,
scalable infrastructure that is interoperable, using open service architecture. These testbeds have,
on a network level, installed the proper mechanism that allows them to connect the different
testbeds. This enables them to set-up and conduct cross-border testbed activities in an easy and
seamless way.
Technological and mass customisation aspects relevent for a network of Living

Labs4
1. Open service architecture that supports intelligent service creation and adaptation
2. Seamless & pervasive environment for service and knowledge discovery
3. Secure, dependable and trustworthy infrastructure
4. Network, device and application interoperability
5. Application Support for variety of interfaces
Table 1 Technological and mass customisation aspects for networked LL

4.2 Living Lab networks – definition and scope
Living Lab networks can be defined as managed collaboration networks (as opposite to self-
organizing networks), which feature internal transparency and direct communication. Members
of a network collaborate and share knowledge directly with each other, rather than through
hierarchies. They come together with a shared vision because they are intrinsically motivated to
do so and seek to collaborate in some way to advance an idea or a concept.
Identified challenges in Living Lab network creation and management include the need for a
specific Living Lab research infrastructure and commonly agreed methodology and terminology
at the European level. Common methodology and tools for creating and managing such networks
would provide SMEs, users and academic community a set of harmonized user-centered research
and innovation services (best practices, services, methods, tools, operational and business models

4 Fahy, C. & Power, T. D3.2 Technological & Mass Customisation – Deliverable of the Corelabs project. http://www.ami-‐
communities.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/d325463/D3.2%20Technological%20%26%20Mass%20Customisation%20Aspects.pdf.

and platforms) and advance the rigor and quality of living lab experimentation in Europe. Thus in
order for Living Lab networks to fulfil their function to
- increase the yield on product and process innovation to accelerate top-line growth
- reduce time-to-market – through lean processes, a higher yield on designs and faster cycle
times
- ensure compliance – by incorporating customer and regulatory requirements at all stages
of the product lifecycle and by automating the process of documenting compliance
- optimize resources – by gaining greater efficiency through the product lifecycle and
digital product and process validation, and leverage globalization – through real-time
collaboration with global partners, suppliers and customers
more harmonized, easily accessible and relevant methodologies, models and tools are needed.
The importance of common methodologies and tools is highlighted in collaborative multi-

stakeholder environments and when the users are involved in an open innovation process. Open
innovation methodologies enable systematic categorization, filtering and analyzing of the
qualitative and quantitative user data. The related tools can be considered as a platform for
interactions, co-creation and feedback, or wider, as a vehicle for broad social, economic and
institutional transformations.
In APOLLON WP1 our objective is to create a sound knowledge base of the various
methodologies and ICT enabled tools for conducting empirical human-centric RDI work, and
empirically validate scientifically proven multi-disciplinary methodologies and platforms for
experimenting with people, societies and companies in real-life contexts, when the companies are
delegating sustainable control over the service development to outsiders, and establish
sustainable user-driven service, product and concept development networks in open and user
driven manner.
4.3 Current networks of Living Labs

In the last years there has been an increasing number of Living Labs throughout Europe, which
are gradually forming a vibrant and still growing community. These Living Labs do not only
differ in the composition and approach but also in the domains they address and their approach.
As a first step in networking these initiatives, the exchange of high-level principles and best
practices for individual Living Lab set-up and implementation is now being addressed in a
number of national and European projects.
Various emerging Living Lab networks have been set up on the European, the regional, and the
national levels (see table). These networks have up till now mainly been focused on creating

awareness related to the concept of a Living Lab, development of tools and methods to be used in
individual Living Labs, the exchange of best practices, and the federation into generic networks.
Level Network Short description
Europe European Network of Living The European Network of Living Labs
Labs (ENoLL) -‐ °2006 creates a platform where companies,
public authorities and citizens can work
together on developing and testing new
technologies, business models and services
in real-‐life contexts. Currently it embraces
about 220 Living Labs
Regional Nordic-‐Baltic Network of Living Nordic is a regional Living Lab network
labs -‐ °2007 that promotes user-‐driven innovation and
“livinglabbing” through national, Nordic,
European and international networking
and active awareness raising in industry,
academia and public sector. It currently
consists of 4 Living Labs
National The Finnish Network of Living Open Forum (LiTe Open) is a nationally
Labs and internationally networked program,
with the mission to develop true testing
platforms for new technology-‐based
product development. The network covers
14 locations in Finland.
Open Living Labs Sweden, The OLLSE network includes 7 Swedish

OLLSE -‐ °2007 Living Labs representing a wide variety of
thematic domains such as energy saving,
new media, healthcare/wellbeing, urban
challenges, airport services, student
services, emerging innovation cultures and
more.
Network of Dutch Living Labs: This network is the cooperation between
Orange Living labs -‐ °2008 several Dutch Living Lab initiatives
stimulated by the Dutch Innovation
platform. It involves four core Living Labs,
some small Living Labs and governmental
departments and municipalities. The
objective is to strengthen the economy of

the Netherlands by promoting it as an

international testbed and Living Lab.
UK Living labs This network consists of the UK Digital

Challenge Network of Living Labs (UK-‐DC-‐
NoLL) which networks 8 geographically-‐
focused Living Labs in England and 4
university-‐based Living labs.
Portuguese Network of Living This network consists of 8 Living Labs that
Labs are also a member of the ENoLL. The
network is focusing on e-‐Inclusion,
economic regeneration and service
transformation. Ii developed an open
innovation approach within local strategic
partnerships, bringing together local
authorities, regional development
agencies, government departments,
research institutions, businesses (both
large enterprises and SMEs) and the
voluntary and community (NGO) sector
Table 2 Overview of existing networks of Living Labs

These emerging networks based on geographical proximity again indicate the dynamic towards
further collaboration between Living Labs. Also, several of these networks have moved, often in
embryonic form, towards grouping Living Labs on a domain-specific basis. These experiences
strongly indicate the need for optimizing efforts by grouping thematically clustered Living Labs
across Europe. Sharing experiences and lessons learned as well as tools and methodologies
between Living Labs communities is important at this stage to be able to capitalize on the effort
spent. The networks currently are still not focusing on this.
The next step that is needed for those Living Labs to move from awareness creation to true
collaboration, is to implement a more detailed analysis of Europe-wide user, market and
technology characteristics and an economically more valuable mode of experimentation, by
networking, comparing and scaling up cross-border Living lab networks. It is of particular
importance to facilitate the participation of SMEs including micro-entrepreneurs both as users
and suppliers in this process. The establishment of further networked systems for open user-
driven research, development and innovation was also clearly recommended by the Living Lab
portfolio Leadership group in its Living Lab roadmap 2007-2010.5

5 http://www.tssg.org/archives/2007/03/corelabs.html

But when looking on how these networks have been established and on which base they selected
and recruited their members, we do so a lot of differences. With regard to the criteria for
becoming a member the networks are not always that transparent. The European Network of
Living Labs has, as one of the few, defined a set of criteria that enables them evaluate the
candidate Living Labs that want to join. When looking at these criteria, two important
conclusions can be made:
1. The criteria are not strictly defined. There are no detailed criteria mentioned in
terms of scale, operations etc...
2. There are no specific criteria related to the network aspect itself. Besides the fact
that the Living Labs need to have international networking expertise no criteria are
stated with regard to collaboration, common procedures etc...
Because of this high level approach and lack of clear collaboration criteria, it is more
difficult for the network to move beyond being just a cluster of Living Labs. Also the
network do not impose any rules on common tools or methods to be used when becoming a
member. Here the network should play a more dominant, steering role in order to be able
to create an environment in which corss border research within the different Living Labs
can be established.

Selection criteria used by Enoll for the acceptance of 4th wave candidates
Evidence of co-‐created values from research, development and innovation
Values/Services offered/provided to LL actors
Measures to involve users
Reality of usage contexts, where the LL runs its operations
User-‐centricity within the entire service process
Full product lifecycle support -‐ capability & maturity
LL covers several entities within value-‐chain(s)
Quality of user-‐driven innovation methods and tools
Availability of required technology and/or test beds
Evidence of expertise gained from the Living Lab operations
Level of own commitment to open innovation process
IPR principles supporting capability and openness
Openness towards new partners & investors

Business-‐citizens-‐government partnership – strength & maturity
Organization of LL governance, management & operations
Business model for LL sustainability
Interest and capacity to be active in EU Innovation system
International networking experience and capability
Channels (web etc) supporting public visibility and interaction
People/Positions dedicated to LL management & operations
4.4 Lessons learned

objective for all of these is similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The
exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network.
Subsequently, the activities are targeted to facilitate and achieve this. The harmonization and
integration of tools and methods between the partners are considered as a next step in the
cooperation between the members of the network. The objective here is to have a set of tools,
methods or even infrastructure that enables to exchange comparable information, to perform
research in a similar way within the various Living labs that are part of the network. Finally, a
third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that
between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a
larger scale is set-up and executed.
However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are in still in the exploratory
phase. This is the case for e.g. EnoLL, Inoll,etc. .When the network has produced concrete
output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs.
For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu),
this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centered research methods that can be
applied, then a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs.
Due to the fact that these networks are young and therefore are still looking about how they want
to address the objectives, there are still a lot of open issues. The elements the networks want to
address are:
-‐ Open and transparent internal communication between the partners of the network and
avoiding in-house clustering
-‐ Sustainability of the network – both organizational as well as financial
-‐ How to deal with the mix of different types of Living labs within the network

-‐ Clear and well defined rules and procedures to collaborate (within an international
context)
The scope of the initiatives is dominated by the timeframe. Some of the networks (EnoLL
Nordic, Finlab,…) are project based and funded. The funding and the time these projects are
defined do affect the activities of these networks. Although that the project approach has set clear
objectives that have to be met at the end of the project, it is not always clear what happens next.
In other words, the sustainability of the networks is unsure (partly depending on the funding).
EnoLL, that has started as an objective within Corelabs, has had to find new ways of organizing
itself after the Corelabs funding ended (legal organisation structure, membership fees,…). As this
has only recently been initiated it is too early to tell whether this approach is successful.

Figure 4.1 Layered objectives Network of Living Labs

Most of the Living Lab network initiatives have only recently started. Therefore are still focusing
on facilitating the exchange of experiences and “how to’s”. Therefore the initiatives are also
confronted with a number of open issues, mainly with regard to procedures and practices to
collaborate with each other. There is a lack of clear defined rules and procedures within the
network that determine how partners should collaborate with each other. The result is that this
currently happens on an ad-hoc base. The risk is of such approach is the possible creation of
“silo’s” or clusters within the network, where a small group of Living Labs always collaborate
between themselves.
When we look at who has initiated the network, then we see that in all of the cases, that this has
been a bottom-up process. The various Living Labs themselves have organised and set-up the
network in place. The main motivation for doing this was a certain need that they encountered to

get to know the other initiatives as well as the need for “lessons learned” in order to grow
themselves.
Important to recognize is that, next to this bottom-up process, the networks have been supported
by a “leading partner”. Such leading partner appears to be crucial in the set-up of the network.
The role of leading partner ranges in the various different from universities, living labs to
governmental agencies.
4.5 SWOT analysis LL networks

Figure 4.2 SWOT - analysis existing networks of Living Labs

The various networks of Living Labs that are already established (EnoLL, Inoll, Nordic Living
Labs, Hispalab,…) are still in their initial, orientation phase. In order to meet with the other
objectives (second and third layer) it is required to start developing new methods, tools,
protocols, technical requirements and to establish a better exchange and re-usability of processes
and procedures creating higher impact on the product / service innovator, the user and the whole
local/regional eco-system. For this a synergized cross-border network methodology and
supporting platforms and toolsets for cross-border thematic living lab networks is needed. The
main elements in this methodology that need to be addressed are: common ecosystems and

Living Lab networks, common benchmark and impact assessment frameworks, common,
technology platforms, and common integration methodologies.
4.6 Creating the Apollon Methodology Framework
Based on the current state of the art knowledge we will create a harmonized APOLLON
methodology for creating, operating, managing and evaluating living lab networks. We present a
scalable framework for systematic living lab network initiation, support and management for the
thematic Living Lab networks in APOLLON project, as well as for ENoLL and other Living Lab
networks in the future.
We show how organizations leverage their expertise and combine customers and suppliers into a
seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader cross-
border ecosystem of Living Lab networks. We further present model for engaging supporting
partners and other external entities into the development work. Adapting the Collaborative
knowledge network approach, Living Lab networks represent core collaborative innovation
networks, which operate in close collaboration with related communities and supporting partners
(learning networks) and interest groups (users, potential members).
Figure 4.3 Layers of Collaborative Networks (Reference: Collaborative Knowledge Networks project
lead by MIT Center for Collective Intelligence and the Center for Digital Strategies at
Tuck at Dartmouth.)
In Apollon project the supporting partners represent the collaborative learning networks, whereas
EnoLL and other related communities would represent the collaborative interest networks. The
objective is for the ecosystem they create is a a high-speed feedback loop in which the innovative
results of networks are immediately taken up and tested, refined or rejected by learning and

interest networks, and fed back to the originating networks. The proposed categorization for
Living Lab network creation and management will apply for all the before mentioned layers, and
serve the living lab community at large.
5. Categorization of the APOLLON Methodology Framework

5.1 Elements of the Apollon Methodology Framework

Methodology creation can be defined as ‘the development of a hierarchical taxonomy of
knowledge creation measures’ (Mitchell, Boyle, 2010). In methodology development we use the
existing practical and theoretical knowledge at our disposal, and elaborate that with empirical
evidence. We apply multiple perspectives and ways of working, and try to establish connections
between the various elements of methodology, as well as the theoretical and practical triggers and
data inputs.
Figure 5.1 The 4 phases of the lifecycle of a Living Lab [Schaffers et al.]
Apollon methodology is especially focused on Living Lab network level and cross-border
collaboration, rather than on single Living Lab level, which in itself is already a collaborative
network as such. Apollon methodology will have several impact layers, including:
- Apollon level methodology, which will be generic level methodology, featuring rules and
guidelines that apply for various types of cross-border experimentation in all types of
Living Lab networks. Apollon methodology will emerge from State of the art knowledge
in Living Lab networks, enriched by knowledge emerging from Apollon thematic pilots,
and validated in Apollon project in project level.

- Methodologies specific to thematic networks. Apollon thematic networks reflect those of
ENoLL networks, and thus the achieved results will be further elaborated and developed
in ENoLL context after Apollon validation. Thematic methodologies will build on the
generic Apollon methodology and be as harmonized as possible, even with different
emphasis.
This multi-layer structure will enable us to improve the relevance of the methodologies for
various domains and target groups. However, due to the complexity of this set up, the
methodology needs to be divided into manageable parts or categories, and thus make it more
easily accessible.
There are several alternative approaches to network methodology creation, ranging from stages of
life cycle approach to layers of interaction, categorization by use cases, phases of development or
Living Lab maturity, like the below description of a Living Lab life cycle approach developed
based on flag ship project C@R.

Figure 5.2 Living Lab networks and their management stages
Building on this model, in this context, we have selected a holistic Living Lab management
approach, and divided Living Lab management into four categories:
1. Connect
2. Set Boundaries and Engage

3. Support and Govern
4. Manage and Track
The objective of the categorization is to establish a common approach to methodology, and
divide the related tasks and elements to easily managed entities. The proposed categorization will
be applied in all Apollon WP1 (Methodology and Tools) related tasks (State of the art,
methodology framework, collaboration model, evaluation framework, future recommendations
and roadmap). The Figure below describes the linkages between the various categories, as well as
the tasks related to each stage of development.
The following chapters describe the categories in more detail.
5.2 Apollon methodology categories
5.2.1 Connect
The first part of the methodology work relates to activities and considerations in the start up
phase of collaboration. In this stage we are defining the primary intent of the community, as well
as the domain and engaging issues: issues important to the organization, aspects that are
important and motivating for people and can bring in new members. This also includes
identifying the ideas, insights and practices that are to be shared in the community at the early
phase. It further relates to the issues related to resourcing and the single partner’s maturity,
capability and expectations in networking.
At this point we create a preliminary design for the community. Thus the focus needs to be on the
value of the community both for the network and individual members’ point of view. This
includes both value of contributing and value of learning from others (e.g. easier access to
information, higher status/reputation of individual members, self-development). The process of
setting up the network should be as transparent and inclusive as possible.
This stage includes the following tasks:

• Setting the objectives and mutually agreed goals for the network.
• Defining roles, responsibilities and operating model for the partners, including initial
ideas related to dividing risk and rewards amongst the parties.
• Identifying and sourcing required sub-networks and supporting parties. The
complementary parties needed for successful completion of the work need to be
connected to the core group. This task also includes identifying the context of the network
and articulating the related other networks and interest groups.
• Identifying relevant policy framework that will impact the project, and be impacted by the
project.

• Identifying what knowledge to share and how, laying an initial plan for a community
repository, identifying ways to capture and store soft knowledge (to be embedded into
community practice and stored into relationships).
• Monuments”: symbols for the identity of community (e.g. logos). Also facilitate creating
and developing of own identity within the community.
• Instruments: an infrastructure that supports interactive communication to enable the
processes of constant negotiation of meaning, participation and reification.
• Points of focus: focal concepts around which the interaction and collaboration will be
structured such as engaging projects for community members
• Launching the community with dedicated community spaces, both private and public (as
in the “Seven principles”) and corresponding initial community events
Identified critical success factors in the connect stage of the development include:
• Establishing mutual trust and investing in social capital and social structures
• Community members with similar interests should be connected together as early as
possible
• The potential coordinators and leader should be identified as early as possible, with
proper legitimization and formalization of their role in the community and the
organization
• The managers and officials in organizations should be engaged early., to avoid being
“threatening” to established structures in the organization
5.2.2 Set Boundaries and engage
At this stage, the network needs to define the organizations’ roles more clearly, as well as
negotiate partners’ responsibilities and addressing the power issues. A part of this process is
measuring and making visible networks’ value for the organization and for individual members.
Also the role and relationship of the network within the existing national and European networks
need to be defined.
The network needs to redefine its boundaries, rules for accepting new members and sustaining
existing networks. For a successful integration of new members, the network should establish
entry routines and requirements for new “admissions” and corresponding processes. The network
will further need to seek relationships with outside organizations in order to keep innovating and
refining its’ agenda on sustainable bases.

Maintaining trust and the social “glue” is crucial in keeping the network together and alive,
therefore it is necessary to clearly define ownerships and issues related to intellectual property
rights. In order to rejuvenate the community, the network should keep “renewal” workshops and
other similar events on a regular basis. Thus at this stage also the rules and processes for
engaging network members on individual as well as organizational level needs to be defined.
This includes virtual tools and networking platforms, as well as the social structures and
interactions.
Identified best practices for engaging collaborative networks include introducing a “stewardship
team” for the community, including the roles of:
• Facilitator (engaging members, supporting members, providing feedbacks)
• Knowledge leader (analyzing and summarizing for community, analyzing and
recommending for management)
• Event coordinator (planning regular events, facilitating online events, growing the
community)
• Administrator (generating the inventory, landscaping the resources (ref Kaulback &
Bergtholdt)), building and organizing a community repository)
Another critical issue is the perceived added value for the network partner. The network must
have sustainable and credible operational and business models including strategy and
implementation measures. Thus the network provided services, tools, access to knowledge and
business model, as well as future potential must be clearly articulated for all beneficiaries.
5.2.3 Support and govern
Living Lab network support will be among the main focus areas for Apollon WP1 work, since
Living Lab services has been an indentified development area for Living Lab community as a
whole. Support and govern category includes issues and tasks related to supporting operational
work within the network, including co-innovation, solution development, user interaction and
field experimentation. This involves processes, methodologies and tools that the network will
provide for its’ members’ disposal, and systematically follow in its’ operations.
Systematically applied methodologies and supporting tools provide companies and other
organizations with a controlled environment for collecting, modelling, analyzing and storing
qualitative user generated data in various contextual settings, as well as for managing user
communities and projects involving target group users. In fact, sustainable methodological

foundation and research infrastructure are prerequisites for high quality research and
experimentation.
In regards to Apollon methodology the main questions is the level of agility and detail in the
methodology development process due to the complexity of the context. General meaning of the
supporting processes however remains the same: supporting ongoing rhythm, milestones and
events of the network, creating communications and active dialogue, building and organizing
knowledge repository for the community, and enable positive engagement and creativity.
5.2.4 Manage and track
In this context manage and track refers to assessment of the potential and achieved benefits and
impact that the network is creating. Evaluation is an ongoing process throughout the network
engagement, and the results will be communicated in multiple levels, including customer, society
& people and performance related results. Performance evaluation is closely related to the
network objectives and key performance indicators, since Living Labs can have very different
objectives ranging from purely economic objectives to policy implications.
According to (Wenger et al, 2002), communities cannot be measured in conventional ways as

traditional methods are not likely “to appreciate the creativity, sharing and self-initiative that are
the core how a community creates value”. The value of the knowledge produced by a community
is highly dynamic and context-dependent. Also, it is important to keep in mind that not all
important parameters can be measured quantitatively. Therefore, at this stage we will focus on
providing as a preliminary overview of probes and indicators that can be useful for monitoring a
community. However, this set should be tailored and adjusted for individual communities and
different contexts.
Clear emphasis is on building a multiple criteria for tracking the network, with emphasis on
network level benefits, including community related issues, like:
• Social networks
o Amount/structure of contacts:
 Social connections across communities
 Networks across national borders
o Participation in joint activities
o Community Identity: blogs, symbols, conventions, ways of displaying
membership
 Social awareness
• Growth
o The growth rate of the community (new members per month)
o Activity level of existing members

o Creation of new communities, creation of new networking patterns, connecting 2
earlier unconnected networks etc
• Organizational issues/power dynamics

o Interactions between 4 community types mentors, learners, enterprise and
university, measured both qualitatively and quantitatively
o Formal vs actual roles (e.g. who is most active in a discussion)
o Is free discussion/exchange ensured? (measuring participations of different
members)
o What actors are involved, from what organizations and organizational levels
Performance measurement is directly linked to management. Thus at this stage we further
elaborate on best practices and management models for the networks, with focus on creative
application and combination of various methodologies and services as applicable.
5.3 Summary
The categorization will enable state of the art processes and practices to be grouped under
relevant categories, and thus more effectively used for the further development of Apollon
methodology, collaboration model and evaluation framework. Streamlined approach to
methodology development from the start will make the methodology cognitively easy to access
and thus contribute to wider implementation and use of the methodology or relevant parts of it.
6. SOTA analysis – methodology

The categorization introduced in chapter 5 has been designed to be applied across different tasks
of Work Package 1 and beyond that within the APOLLON consortium. These tasks include the
baseline study for Monitoring & Evaluation purposes, the development of the APOLLON
methodology framework for cross border Living Lab networks and the state of the art analysis of
already existing structures, tools or methodologies associated with Living Lab collaboration and
networking. This not only ensures a common approach and understanding across different tasks
and work packages but mainly guarantees consistent findings that can be integrated into the
bigger picture which ultimately manifests with the validated and tested APOLLON methodology
framework at the end of the project.
The categorization along the lifecycle of cross border Living Lab networks is therefore also
reflected in the questionnaire that has been designed for semi-structured interviews within and
outside of the APOLLON consortium (see annex A). Parts of the questions have not been strictly
applied but served as guidelines for an open discussion with the interviewee. As the interviewees
have been chosen according to their proven record of experience and expertise within the
European Living Lab community and network, several inputs have been captured that not directly
corresponds with one of the questions but go beyond the initially requested information. One of

the main targets of the interviews was to capture qualitative data on existing Living Lab
networking initiatives in order to derive a rating of how successful methodologies, tools or
organizational structures have been applied in real life.
The outcomes of the interviews served as input for a collection of available methodologies, tools
and structures including a SWOT analysis that also reflects expressed lessons learned.
The applied common validation and consolidation of interview outcomes have been kept very
simple by intention and comprises the following information:
• Main category and sub-category according to the categorization of the APOLLON
methodology framework
• The concept category distinguishing between methodologies, organizational/governance
structures and tools
• The origin of the finding naming the project’s or initiative’s name and its concept
• A verbal description summarizing the main facts about the finding
• A SWOT analysis listing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the findings
• Available references for further details
• An indication of the relevance of the findings for the APOLLON methodology framework
The following initiatives have been considered for the SOTA analysis and represent a set of
Living Lab initiatives that contain a cross border networking or LL collaboration aspect. These
initiatives have been investigated through the accessible extended partner network of the
APOLLON consortium and are considered to sufficiently reflect the current SOTA and lessons
learned with regards to networking structures, methodologies and tools.

Living Lab Contacted/interviewed Sources of information

initiative person
C@R Hans Schaffers (Aalto Recorded interview at 11th of

(Collaboration at University), Christian February 2010, C@R deliverables
Rural) Merz (SAP AG)
Ecospace Hans Schaffers (aalto Recorded interviews at 11th and

University), Victor 12th of February 2010, Ecospace
Kaufmann (SAP AG) deliverables
Laboranova Roxana Belecheanu (SAP Recorded interview at 29th of

AG) January 2010, Laboranova
deliverables
COLLABS Roberto Santoro Transcripted Skype interview at

9th of February 2010, COLLABS
deliverables

Finlab Janne Orava Recorded interview at 9th of

February, 2010, Finlab and
Finnish network of Living Lab
study results
ENoLL Nordic Petra Turkama Report on ENoLL Nordic project

deliverables January 2010
OpenLite Veli-‐Pekka Niitamo Transcripted interview on 5th

February, 2010, Open Lite results
Open Living Labs Mikael Börjeson Transcripted interview on 26th

SwEden (OLLSE) February, 2010, OLLSE
CoreLabs Mikael Börjeson Transcripted interview on 26th

February, 2010, CoreLabs
PanLabII Anastasios Gavras Transcripeted interviews on19th

February, 2010, PanLabII
7. Catalogue of State of the Art

The following presents the main findings of the state of the art analysis.

7.1 Connect

Connect -‐ Roles & Responsibilities

Concept category Methodology/Organizational Structure
Origin Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Vertical Groups and matrix

management

Description The cyclic development iterations have been supported by

interdisciplinary task-‐forces, called vertical groups. These task-‐
forces originally were set-‐up because of the need to integrate and
align different work activities within C@R, aligning different aspects
of the collaborative platform, the core services, the tools and
applications, and user experimentation. They have been composed
mainly of technical experts experienced in service oriented
architecture and collaborative working environments and have
succeeded in exchanging knowledge and methods across the living
labs groups as well. Several vertical groups have been established:
the Spanish Vertical Group (related to Soria and Cudillero living
labs), the Sekhukhune-‐Homokhati-‐Åboland Vertical Group and the
Czech-‐Italian Vertical Group. These vertical groups have had specific
objectives related to supporting the technological needs of the living
labs, and specifically for developing the collaborative applications.
Nevertheless, all vertical groups share the objective of defining an
architectural approach to create advanced collaborative
environments based on the composition of already existing basic
collaboration services. In order to achieve this aim, each vertical
group has been centered in different approaches and architecture
implementation parts, so they are collaborating to achieve the
architecture related goal. As an example, the Spanish vertical group
has defined a framework to instantiate software collaboration tools
specified in BPEL and managed the processes related to the
orchestration and choreography of the basic collaboration services
that compose an specific software collaboration tool. The
Sekhukhune-‐Homokhati-‐Aboland vertical group has defined an
approach for high-‐level modeling of software collaboration tools
using Business Process Models Graphical notations that would be
able to be translated as BPEL scripts. All vertical groups exchanged
regularly.
SWOT Strengths Weaknesses

• Applied in real life over a period • Have not been applied
of 6 cycles (3 monthly) successfully to all participating
• Authentic outcomes in terms of Living Labs
co-‐innovation across 2 or more
Living Labs
Opportunities Threats
• A generalized concept of vertical •
grouping could merge into a skills
& capacity database accessible to
a wider community of Living Labs


References C@R Deliverable D.3.1.2: Synergies Management and Integrated LL

Requirements, Deployment and Development Report, C@R
consortium
APOLLON In order to achieve open innovation an effective and efficient

methodology methodology for identifying capable and skilled resources is of
framework utmost importance. In particular a multidisciplinary approach
relevance requiring coordinated efforts is of benefit to the quality and quantity
of results. A generalized framework of the vertical grouping concept
could lead to a skills & capacity database that helps to access
knowledge in a network of Living Labs to the benefit of individual
Living Labs.

Connect -‐ Objectives and Goals

Concept category Methodology
Origin Co-‐creating Living Labs, CoreLabs, Living Lab Roadmap 2007-‐2010
Description In order to define a shared reference towards a harmonization of

methods and tools for use in a European Network of Living Labs an
interoperability cube for harmonizing Living Labs has been
developed (Mulder, Fahy, Hribernik, Velthausz, Feuerstein, et al.,
2007). The interoperability cube (Error! Reference source not
found.) builds on the assumption that the focus on synergies and
those elements that Living Labs want to exchange with each other
forms an appropriate basis for the harmonization of methods and
tools. The cube identifies these exchange possibilities and explicitly
defines interoperability elements from organizational, technical and
contextual perspectives in which different standards are relevant.
The interoperability cube consist of six sides: User involvement,
Service Creation, Infrastructure, Governance, Innovation outcome,
Methods and tools. The aim is that the sides of the cube should be
used to support the process of harmonising methods and tools

among different Living Labs, but also as a way to structure and
access the repository of other resources.

• Developed in correlation with the • Have not been applied
establishment of Enoll successfully to all participating
• Easy to understand and follow for Living Labs
different Living Labs • Too broad definitions of each
• Gives a common frame of category
reference which functions as a • Not scientifically validated
basis for discussion
• Each category could be defined • Important aspects could be
and developed further to support missed due to the limitations of
the process of setting up the cube
networks and to reach a common
objective

References CoreLabs – Living Labs Roadmap 2007-‐2010, Recommendations on

Systems for Open User driven Research, Development and
Innovation
APOLLON In order to achieve open innovation an effective and efficient

methodology methodology for identifying capable and skilled resources is of
framework utmost importance. In particular a multidisciplinary approach
relevance requiring coordinated efforts is of benefit to the quality and quantity
of results. A generalized framework of the vertical grouping concept
could lead to a skills & capacity database that helps to access
knowledge in a network of Living Labs to the benefit of individual
Living Labs.

Connect – Roles and responsibilities

Concept category Methodology/organizational structure/governance

Origin COLLABS, Deliverable 2.2
Description Identification of living labs under various thematic domains in order
to share pilot ideas and platforms for new projects and experiments.
The project did a review of existing European Living Labs under
various thematic domains and shared this through project
dissemination activities. Thematic grouping of the networks and
living labs increased the awareness of the living labs’ specific focus
and strengths within the living lab community. This enables effective
sharing of knowledge and best practices with expert groups, as well
as finding partners for future projects and cross-‐border initiatives.
Thematic clustering represents the latest development in the living
lab maturity process, where individual actors move from stand alone
operations to regional networks and further to cross-‐border
thematic networks with increased industry relevance and value add
for participating SMEs.

• Open for also none ENoLL • Not a comprehensive list of
members living labs
• First large scale attempt to • maintaining and updating the
group living labs by list after the project is not
specialization clear
• Enabling identification of • Potentially different from
learning networks and ENoLL thematic partners
interest groups to support • Few living labs are strictly
newly established thematic specialized in only one
LL networks domain. Listing may create
• Background document fro profiles that do not reflect the
ENoLL decising on thematic whole picture.
networks

References Deliverable D2.2 Technical report for WP2 (by Schaffers)
APOLLON Added value for thematic networks. Potential partners for future
methodology projects, dissemination or supporting partners. Thematic roadmaps
framework as an idea something worth exploring also in Apollon project.
relevance



Connect – Objectives and Goals/Subnetworks and supporting parties

Concept category Tools
Origin ENoLL Nordic LL toolbox
Description The concrete outcome of ENoLL Nordic project was a virtual toolbox
for Living Lab research. The online resource (www.lltoolbox.eu)
includes advice and practical tools for companies and other actors to
get involved and started with Living Lab research. The pages also
include references to further literature on the subjects. The toolbox
is interactive, and thus open for contributions.
Living Lab toolbox is a handbook and resource library for any actors
interested in living lab research and practice. It summarizes
methods and tools commonly used in user research, open innovation
and living labs. The various methods have been grouped following
innovation cycle and phases and thus easily accessible.
The toolbox was collected during ENoLL Nordic project, which
operated as event based promotion and sharing initiative,
investigating the opportunities and added value of Nordic
collaboration for living labs. Toolbox is maintained by Luleå
Technical University.

• Open for everyone • Usage and user feedback on
• Good collection of LL the pages not systematically
research methods and tools documented
• Ease of access and clarity of • Not specifically targeted for
presentation living lab networks, but
rather project based work in
individual living lab
• Using the page as a reference • Similar resources exist based
and learning instrument for on other projects as well.
the project • Implementation of the

• Dissemination and practices is not discussed.

awareness building for living Professional use of the
lab work mentioned methods requires
• New potential living alb support.
clients through the pages
References www.lltoolbox.eu
APOLLON Added value for SMEs as a practical guide. Reference point for more
methodology detailed information on specific methods, and thus providing an
framework additional layer for APOLLON methodology.
relevance Since Apollon project concentrates on living lab network level, but
there are also needs in individual living labs and experiments for
additional and specific consulting, the toolbox can act as a general
reference resource for the experiments.

7.2 Set boundaries and engage

Set Boundaries and Engage – Networking business model

Concept category Model/methodology
Description A conceptual framework of living lab business models.

A living lab business model defines the assets (resources), activities
and collaboration through which a living lab offers products or
services to its stakeholders, and eventually creates value for them.
Thus, the business model describes a “value proposition”: the value
created for its stakeholders by the product or service offering.
Moreover, the living lab business model in its rural or regional
environment defines the position and functioning of the living lab as
part of the rural innovation system and innovation policy.

COLLABS defined the elements of Living Lab business models and
distinguishes living lab business models on basis of following
dimensions:
1. Funding and revenue generation

2. Service offering and value proposition
3. Business process and organization.

Furthermore, the projects have been divided by driver into project
based, consortium based and facility based living labs with different
business models.

• Builds on extensive review of • Have not been applied
leading European Living Lab successfully to all Living
practices Labs, more research needed
to develop and proof the
concept
• Living Lab business models • Various objectives in Living
have been identified as the Labs –not all aim for
major issues in Living Lab economic value
network sustainability. Great maximization, and thus linear
potential for breakthrough revenue creation model may
findings. not apply.
• Models become very generic
and thus do not add value
APOLLON Conceptual framework can be used as a reference when identifying
methodology and classifying various types of Apollon experiments and networks,
framework and planning the potential business models based on this initial
relevance categorization. Furthermore, COLLABS project identified Living Lab
business models as a critical and yet under investigated area of
research. APOLLON WP1 can contribute to filling this identified gap
in Living Lab research, and thus make a significant contribution to
Living Lab community.

Set Boundaries and Engage -‐ Living Lab Policy Framework

Concept category Governance
Description Identification of the potential avenues for Living Labs to influence

national and regional policy making. Identified policy challenges.
Many regions, provinces and cities across Europe have implemented
policies and instruments to stimulate innovation and socio-‐
economic development, for example through fostering clusters and
through intensifying innovation support. It is now widely recognized
that it is no longer sufficient to focus on technology innovation as
innovation is increasingly shifting towards market and society pull
models.
Responding to and even giving shape to this transformation, the
Living Labs concept aims to balance the forces of technology push
and market pull by contributing to the formation of sustainable
innovation ecosystems where regional stakeholders, citizens and
companies including SMEs are engaged and collaborating in an early
stage for user-‐driven and open innovation.
Living Labs could constitute such an interactive policy intervention
as they constitute an open innovation instrument which brings in
the users in an early stage. However to qualify as interactive policy
intervention, living labs should constitute a learning environment
for both living labs stakeholders and policy makers.

• Builds on extensive review of • Work is still ongoing and few
leading European Living Lab concrete examples of
practices implementation exist
• Focus on SME potential in • Division of various policy
regional level levels yet not clear.
• Building on existing • Living labs definition must
knowledge policy be clarified in order to avoid
implications can be misunderstandings and
accelerated wrong expectations.
• In this context living labs
considered learning
environments, thus the
definition could be much
broader

APOLLON Relevant especially for WP1 task 1.5: Future recommendations and
methodology roadmap. Important lessons learned collected from earlier
framework initiatives in single living lab level. Presented policy
relevance recommendations still hold valid, and could be incorporated in
Apollon work.

Set Boundaries and Engage – Technological solutions

Concept category Model
Origin CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010
Description The living labs foster the formation of online communities and
provide existing rural communities with technical support. For
geographical and demographical reasons the Internet penetration in
rural areas is far from that in larger cities. It seems that current
business models and technologies cannot achieve breakthrough in
this area. Therefore we need new business models which are closer
to real life situations in rural areas, villages. For example, in a small
community people know each other and they try to solve any arising
problems in much closer cooperation than in larger towns and cities.
From the aspect of technology and business models the Wireless
Mesh Network solution fits perfectly into this picture. Utilizing this
solution a community can achieve wireless network coverage for a
small town or village. The network infrastructure is managed by
volunteer citizens. As the whole system is self-‐healing and self-‐
tuning, the system can be expanded in a plug and play manner
without special knowledge. With this solution the whole community
will have network access and will be able to communicate with each
other through this data network. The Internet access can be
provided by volunteers sharing their already existing wired
connections. As a free source for the community, the mayor’s office
may provide the whole village/town with several broadband wired
gateways. The WMN can be used to extend the range and the

services of an already existing WiFi based ISP (W-‐ISP) or ISP’s.

to develop and proof the
concept
• Suitable methods and tools
currently change and develop
• The growth of social media • Growth of social networking
interaction technology

References CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010
APOLLON Applying supportive technical infrastructure is vital for business

methodology model success in networks of Living Labs.
framework
relevance

Set Boundaries and Engage – Living Lab business model

Concept category Governance/Models
Origin CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010
Description The governance structure of a Living Lab describes the way it is

organised and managed at different levels such as the operational or
strategic ones. These (organisational, contextual or technological)
aspects are related to the life cycle of the Living Lab. The strategic
level deals with issues like: the way Intellectual Property Rights and

exploitation of results are dealt with; the way stakeholders are
involved (financial contributions, commitment, responsibility,
influence), financing: public-‐private-‐partnership, commercial;
ownership of the Living Lab, i.e. its services, infrastructure, and the
responsible entity for Living Lab (dedicated organisation or
consortium); the management structure, e.g. director, steering
board, (technical) program committee, user committee; driver and
nature of the Living Lab, e.g. community-‐driven, research driven,
business/industry driven, technology driven, open/closeness:
sharing resources/network; Living Lab development: consortium
dynamics (e.g. additional partners, user groups), subsidy/funding
policy and the definition and adjustment of the agenda. The
operational level includes aspects like: working practices for the day
to day management; execution & monitoring of the living lab goals
regarding the synergy, quality and progress monitoring, internal
communication; the way new software and services are introduced
and validated, responsibilities and liabilities; the definition of user
group/ awareness of being part of Living Lab; dissemination and
external communication: national and international consolidation;
the way projects are organized and funded.

• Gives directions on how to to develop and proof the
plan governance structures concept

• The operational level can be • Different cultures among
developed to give further stakeholders
support
References CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010
APOLLON The governance of the network is important and this gives

methodology substantial support for this process.
framework
relevance



Set Boundaries and Engage – Technological Solutions

Origin Laboranova -‐ Toolset
Description Laboranova supports innovators, teams and companies within the

development and management of innovative ideas and concepts.
The methods and tools guide the users through the process of the
early-‐stage innovation starting with
• team building,
• generation and management of back-‐ and foreground knowledge,
• idea and concept generation and management
• and the idea or concept evaluation and selection.

Laboranova secures transparent procedures and decision making on
a solid knowledge base aiming at product, process or service
innovation. Laboranova provides the web 2.0 tools supporting the
early-‐stage innovation. The following tools have been developed:
Distributed Feedback: This tool provides a set of small, lightweight
desktop applications (called widgets), which allow the user to have
an overview of all the public ideas submitted by other users, to have
an overview of the different markets open in IdeM (the Idea Market
tool) and in which ideas are being traded on, and to enter an idea
and submitted to the central idea repository, either as draft or
public.
Idearium: Idearium is a visual and interactive tool for asynchronous
and distributed brainstorming which enhances the ideation process
in four aspects:
• Project Management
• Visualization
• Collaboration
• Interactivity

IDeM: IDeM is a collaborative innovation support environment that
uses the market metaphor to provide:
• idea generation mechanisms

• feedback, commenting and rating
• aggregation of the preferences of users to support idea
selection
InnoJam: InnoJam is a discussion-‐based tool that can bring together

thousands of users and connect them in an asynchronous way to
empower the generation and evolution of ideas.
InnoJam is aimed to support massive-‐participation events. In that

line, a higher level of participation from the users provides a greater
value from the system features. Even though, it can also suit the
needs of smaller events, with a lower level of participation.
The community of participants has an important value as it is given
the power to vote and rank ideas, their evolution or other proposed
alternatives.
InnoTube: Customers’ needs are often not openly expressed.

However, what emerges from our past experience is a clear need of
having a better understanding of the useful information needed for
fostering and participating in the Innovation process. InnoTube
offerst the following features:
• browse through and reflect about relevant videos on

Innovation
• Connect to relevant knowledge assets (mainly videos, but not
only) related to the Innovation dimension
• Gather annotations related to videos and provide feedback to
existing videos
• Provide opportunity to identify relevant Innovation-‐related
Ideas, Innovators and knowledge assets (mainly videos)
• Connect with one’s own innovation-‐related characteristics
and positioning
• Connect with other members’ innovation-‐related
characteristics and positioning
• Monitor the evolution of the community in the whole or of a
specific object over time
• Play a funny and compelling word matching game which
fosters further reflection on innovation ideas and allows to
connect to other people.

MashUp: The mashup is a web–based application which provides a
common, yet personalized entry point to the Laboranova
environment. The mashup acts also as an integrated front-‐end to the
user innovation space (ideas, people, and related information), as
well as to the innovation tools developed as part of Laboranova.
Several user roles are catered for in the mashup and its functionality
is customised to these roles.
For innovators, contributors and evaluators, the mashup will offer a

space for visualizing ideas and associated information, for adding
comments and other types of evaluations such as ratings, as well as
for finding expertise and connecting to the relevant people at the
right time.
For innovation managers and team or project leader, the mashup

will provide support to monitor and analyse the innovation activity
and contributions of their team members (through relevant
analytics), as well as for moderating communication and fostering
collaboration in order to make innovation more efficient.
Melodie: KartOO created Melodie to allow the collaborative

generation of ideas over the internet. All ideas are shown as a
cartography (map) which visualizes the results. There is a semantic
system which links and clusters the same topics between the ideas,
so that similar ideas are shown near one another. Moreover, people
can improve an idea by entering an improvement of an already
existing idea. All ideas are shown and every users is allowed to
access them and to modify ideas until they are finalized.
Profile System: The Laboranova Profile System is designed to
enhance users’ ability to identify people who would be useful to
them in creating innovations. Profiling tools are key in that they
should generate virtual crossroads that normally mainly happen by
chance in our professional life -‐ such as meeting someone having a
common interest with a complementary expertise during a
conference or other event – they can thus provide a random chance
of meeting a collaboration opportunity.
refQuest: The generation of ideas to solve a given problem in an
innovation area is one of the main tasks in the fuzzy front-‐end of
innovation. refQuest is a multi-‐player online game supporting the
idea generation by disruptiveness and structuring of the ideation
process by applying creativity techniques. It allows Virtual Teams to
cooperate in ideation over distance.

Rich Knowledge Meetings: Many times synchronous
communication, i.e., in real time, is preferred to asynchronous. Rapid
response to ideas will result in an efficient dialog to creativity and
lower the risk for misunderstanding In asynchronous
communication like email, discussion boards, the time delay to a
response may damper a discussion.
Rich Knowledge Meeting tool makes it easy to have rich meetings

even if you are geographical apart. You talk to each other, you can
see each other, you can share documents, and co-‐operate using the
other Laboranova tools. And since you are using your normal
computer you will have full access to your email, calendar, and all
your files.
The Wrap: The Wrap is a file folder system and a Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS) combined in one manipulable visual structure.
The structure is made up of ‘folders’ (circles) in which content such
as files, links and work tasks are placed as hyperlinks. The circles
however double as ‘containers’ for both content and other circles
allowing the circles to form a WBS, i.e. a hierarchy of sub-‐ and
superproject levels.
Xpertum: Xpertum is an interactive web-‐based tool for visualizing

social networks, in terms of competences and people, which uses
basically force-‐directed and clustering algorithms (work in
progress).

• Tool validation has been • Have mainly been applied in
executed with promising individual corporate
results environments within
• Comprehensive toolset for Laboranova
early stage innovation
• Piloting of such tools within a • No threats
vertical network of cross
border Living Labs
References Laboranova – Toolset, deliverable 7.5.2 -‐ Innovation Management at

Companies – Tool Validation
APOLLON Early stage innovation tool support not only applies to distinctive,
methodology single Living Labs but also to networks of Living Labs. In principle
there is no difference in handling these tools as early stage

framework innovation doesn’t differentiate whether collaborating partners are
relevance acting within a single Living Lab or within a network of Living Labs.
Therefore it is expected that the findings of Laboranova can be
applied in APOLLON as well.

7.3 Support and Govern

Support and Govern – Co-‐Innovation

Origin COLLABS D3.2 Living Lab methodology assessment
Description Description of a few important elements of living labs methodologies
that have been explored and validated in Integrated Projects C@R
(www.c-‐rural.eu) and ECOSPACE (www.ip-‐ecospace.org). These
methodologies for setting up and running individual living labs
distinguish between generic and specific methodologies to run living
lab innovation projects. The principles can be partly applied for
Networks of Living Labs.
• Among the most • May not be detailed enough
comprehensive investigation to add value in actual cases.
into Living Lab
methodologies

• Find analogies between the • Network management is
processes in living lab and more complicated than
network levels operations in single living lab

References COLLABS Deliverable 3.2 Technical report

APOLLON Establishes a good overview of current state of affairs with regards
methodology to Living Lab and Living Lab network methodologies. Can help
framework identify gaps in the existing knowledge in the field and thus direct
relevance APOLLON WP1 work.

Support and Govern – User Interaction

Origin CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-‐2010
Description User involvement is one of the key elements of a Living Lab, and as
such should be a focal point of mature Living Labs. In creating usable
systems it is generally accepted that they should be designed
according to an iterative approach, and that user involvement is
crucial, see e.g., Mulder (2004). The focus is on finding out what the
relevant experiences, methods, tools that Living Labs benefit from
are. Users are important to define context-‐aware services, think for
example of cultural differences. Organisational issues include
questions like How to organize user involvement? How to find the
right users? What about the validity? How to motivate the users?
From a technological point of view: How to get access to large user
groups? How to analyse large amounts of data? In order to enable
scalability, the use of grid technology can be seen as a possible
solution, as the volume of data generated within the Living Lab could
become extremely large. Analysing social context data, application
usage data and user experience data collected in real-‐life settings
presents new challenges -‐ it’s not clear a priori which data is
relevant. Therefore, new analysis and reporting modules might be
needed along with scalable, flexible storage and computing
resources to cope with large amount.

• Builds on a comprehensive • The merits of user
study of existing Living Labs involvement has not been

scientifically validated in
numerous studies

• Contious need to be updated • It is difficult to identify users
due to changes in use of of innovations
technology

References CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-‐2010
APOLLON Gives a sound basis for user involvement activities and identifies
methodology relevant questions to be answered.
framework
relevance

Support and Govern – Co-‐Innovation

Concept category Methodology/ Tools
Origin CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-‐2010
Description The CoreLabs project has investigated methods and tools for Living
Labs and established a respective taxonomy. The current Living Labs
are using a diversity of technologies, infrastructures and
applications and some host specialist technology providers and
research institutes. Best Practices have been analyzed in order to
ensure interoperability by either defining the use of de-‐facto
standards or suggesting extensions to existing ones where
applicable. The methods & tools category within the interoperability
cube describes different methods and tools used within the existing
European Living Lab at all stages.
Integration of the project in the Living Lab infrastructure. A full Living

Lab service offering not only requires product and service
development and evaluation methodologies but also a mechanism
for the integration of the customers’ product or service into a Living
Lab to provide it to the users. The efficient, transparent and smooth
integration accomplished by the Living Lab provider is the key for
trust and convenience of the customer. It also can work as a first
product/service testing depending on the level of development
(market launch testing).
Co-creation. The core service of the Living Lab is to facilitate the co-‐
creation of a product, service or application development. This co-‐
creative product development process can be decomposed into four
phases: Product Idea, Product Concept, Product Development, and
Market Launch. The methods are divided into traditional market
research methods and internet based methods allocated to the
process phase they are most appropriate.
Data preparation. To fulfil the customers’ expectations regarding the
results and to reduce the complexity of the evaluated data, the Living
Lab provider offers a standardised data preparation. The great
advantage of the standardisation is the comparability with the
results within other Living Labs in the network and the confirmation
of the expected output in the run-‐up to the usage of the Living Labs.

• Builds on a comprehensive • Does not give any guidance
study of existing Living Labs on which methods to use
• Does not describe methods
and tools to be applied

• Contious need to be updated • Methods needs to be adjusted
due to changes in use of according to situational
technology aspects

References CoreLabs – Deliverable 2.3 Roadmap 2007-‐2010
APOLLON Gives a sound basis for how to think about methods and tools during
methodology Living Labs activities and interactions.
framework
relevance



Support and govern -‐ Co-‐Innovation, Solution Development

Origin Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Cyclic development
Description Cornerstone of the C@R living lab methodology is continuous

development, prototyping, user experimentation and evaluation of
innovative collaboration systems and new ways of collaborative
working. The aim in C@R was to link and integrate innovative
technical work and user-‐driven innovation process, embedded in
local innovation and rural development contexts. The approach was
two-‐level: (1) organising the development and experimentation of
software systems in cycles (mostly three-‐monthly), and (2) within
these cycles applying an action research approach at the „micro-‐
level“ of interactions between designers, users, researchers and
other stakeholders. From the early beginning and grounded in local
community building C@R built up a series of experimentations and
evaluations, monitored over time and organised in three-‐monthly
cycles. This approach has worked remarkably well in organising the
living lab project teams and in achieving concrete results and also
provided a good basis for end-‐user driven software development
processes. It has been applied across all involved living labs in C@R
and therefore provided a guiding frame in terms of organizing and
reporting progress on solution development.
Establishing an environment of user-‐led co-‐creation currently
cannot go that far as to let users develop specific architecture
components. These components even should be hidden for the users.
However, C@R aimed to maximize user engagement on all levels.
Therefore the “artefacts” must be identified that possibly can be
influenced and shaped by the users, on basis of a process of
interaction, exchange and dialogue between developers and users,
and also researchers and other stakeholders. Such artifacts include
simple scenarios for work and business enhancements, evaluations
and ideas for improvements of current collaboration processes,
elements of collaborative workplace reference architecture, initial
application designs and mock ups, and more developed prototypes.

A next element of end-‐user shaping and appropriation is in actually
using and experimenting with the application prototypes in near-‐
real or real-‐life settings, providing explicit or implicit feedback and
guidelines.
Therefore, an important challenge in designing living lab projects is
to create the conditions and frameworks for such „action research“
interactions, e.g. by establishing a local user–stakeholder community
and arranging agreements among all actors to participate to the
process, and given such frameworks to arrange and manage the
concrete innovation project as a process of user-‐influenced
experimentation and evaluation covering the complex, cyclic and
interacting processes of conceptualizing, designing, developing,
testing, using and validating the innovations.

• Enforcement to think in terms • No weaknesses
of cyclic progression
• Alignment and close
synchronization of cyclic
development activities across
collaborative living labs
• Cyclic development could be • Solution developers might be
applied more extensively across afraid of being observed to
living labs, in particular for joint closely (e.g. short reporting
development activities periods)
References C@R deliverable D3.1.1 -‐ Common methodology framework
APOLLON Co-‐innovation, when applied across living labs become tricky in

methodology terms of organization and execution. Appropriate planning and
framework monitoring of solution development activities is key for the success
relevance of new products and services, in particular when development
resources are spread across organizations in different living labs.
Therefore the cyclic development methodology constitutes an
important aspect for cross border LL networks.




Origin Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Reference architecture
Description A platform for advanced Collaborative Working Environments

(CWEs) has been designed that follows the principles of an Open
Service Oriented Architecture (OSOA). The multilayer architecture
design realizes decoupled building blocks to deal with different
aggregation levels of business functionality, namely Collaborative
Core Services, Software Collaboration Tools, Orchestration
Capabilities and Living Lab Applications. Additional to these layers a
Control BUS has been conceptualized and implemented in order to
centrally deal with component registration and brokerage enabling
component reusability across Living Lab borders. The architecture
design provides a reference framework for the individual Rural
Living Lab flavored implementations that reflect local specifics of the
overall concept as a result of the contextual “engineering target
point”.

Such a platform on the one hand need to be dedicated enough to
accommodate commonalities within a range of rural Living Labs and
flexible enough to serve individual needs of certain sectors, cultural
backgrounds, ICT infrastructures etc. During the lifetime of the
project it became evident that a reference architecture for rural
CWEs has certain limitations in terms of reusable concepts due to
the variety of use cases and professions being present in remote
areas. Nevertheless C@R found out overlaps between architectural
needs if not between all Living Labs at least between some of them.
These overlaps drove the architectural design and the flavored
implementations of according platforms operated in the individual
Living Labs.

• Common architectural • Common component reuse only
principles and elements applied occasionally, no broad
applicable to a wide range of LL adoption

solutions • Some LL haven’t applied some
• Reusable concepts and of the major concepts at all
components
• Open standards and interfaces
• Reference architecture • Non compliancy to reference
approach applicable to many LL architecture result in missed
except the ones in C@R synergies between LLs
• Reference architecture could be
enhanced to reflect a guiding
architecture framework for
different sectors of LLs (which
was the original idea of OCA
Working Group)
References C@R deliverable D2.5.1 – Open Service Oriented Architecture
(OSOA)
APOLLON As soon as Living Labs identify a common ground to collaborate in
methodology technical solutions and applications there is a need to conclude on
framework common principles regarding the software platform and
relevance architecture. A reference architecture provides this common
principles which offers opportunities to reuse components, to
integrate with heterogeneous platforms and legacy systems and to
interoperate between different platforms.


Origin Ecospace – CWE Reference Architecture
Description The CWE Reference Architecture describes the main building blocks,
system components and artifacts with their interrelationships as a
template solution to be reused while building architectures and
designing systems for CWE. Being a “reference” architecture means
being as technology-‐independent as possible.
The ECOSPACE project endorses this architecture and implements
tools and prototypes that validate the proposed reference

architecture by demonstrating at the same time a possible
implementation direction exploiting state-‐of-‐the-‐art technologies
like SOA, Semantic Web and Widgets.
A layered approach has been followed to present the architecture.
This approach defines seven layers which can be presented in two
groups: horizontal and vertical.
Horizontal
• Basic Service layer: Here the Basic Collaborative Services (BCSs)

can be found. A BCS represents a simple collaborative task that
can not be divided into smaller parts, e.g. create a blog, send an e-‐
mail, or upload a document. This is a fundamental layer as it
provides the building blocks for constructing the other layers. It
is populated by ideally all available BCSs in the CWE domain.
• Orchestration layer: This layer is populated by Composite
Collaborative Services (CoCoS). These services are defined as
sets of BCSs combined in a defined order to provide value-‐added
collaborative functionality to the user. E.g. upload document and
notify all users, inform users about an appointment. ECOSPACE
has already identified and documented a number of BCSs
• Collaborative Application Layer: Here we find the software
applications that employ the capabilities of basic services and/or
orchestrated services that the user wishes to use, e.g. BSCW, BC.
• Desktop Layer: This represents the user interface or front-‐end
which is used by eProfessionals to interact with one or more
CWE applications. This interface is decoupled from the other
layers.
Vertical
• Semantic Infrastructure Layer: This layer stores models,

metadata and rules to be used by all the other layers in order to
provide “intelligence”, contextualization and personalization of
CWE functionalities and services.
• Registry/Repository Layer: This layer stores information on
where the several components and information associated to the
artifacts that populate the other layers can be found.
• QoS Layer: This layer provides the capabilities required to
monitor, manage, and maintain QoS such as security, error
handling, transaction management, scalability and reliability.


• Common architectural • No weaknesses
principles and elements
applicable to a wide range of LL
solutions
• Reusable concepts and
components
• Open standards and interfaces
• Reference architecture • Non compliancy to reference
approach applicable to many LL architecture result in missed
except the ones in Ecospace synergies between LLs
• Reference architecture could be
enhanced to reflect a guiding
architecture framework for
different sectors of LLs (which
was the original idea of OCA
Working Group)
References Ecospace – Deliverable W.2 D.1 – Versions of the API, Ontology, and
Reference Architecture

APOLLON As soon as Living Labs identify a common ground to collaborate in
methodology technical solutions and applications there is a need to conclude on
framework common principles regarding the software platform and
relevance architecture. A reference architecture provides this common
principles which offers opportunities to reuse components, to
integrate with heterogeneous platforms and legacy systems and to
interoperate between different platforms.


Concept category Governance/Tools
Origin Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – Reference laboratory
Description The Reference Laboratory acts as a playground for integration

testing and demonstration purposes. Therefore it includes to
validate the integration of CCSs (Collaborative Core Services -‐ basic
services) and SCTs (Software Collaboration Tools -‐ orchestrated

services) within the C@R architecture.
The reference laboratory delivers a reference implementation of the
C@R architecture, a basic but functional miniature of what an entire
Living Lab can become. Partners across different Living Labs can test
integration issues and demonstrate simple functions on top of it.
The final deployment of this Integration Testing instrument is a
stable set of tools featuring physical machines, mandatory elements
of the C@R architecture (such as the C@R BUS), virtual machines,
additional software, repository showcasing documents and
components yet to be tested or already tested, and also a DVD image
of an up-‐to-‐date distribution of the Reference Laboratory itself.
At the same time, the Reference Laboratory has to be flexible enough
to allow users find the best practices and procedures, modify or
expand it on their own to fit their needs without interfering with the
rest of the partners, learn to choose which components can be tested
and, in short, grow with the project.

• Application of up to date tools • Reference laboratory has not
for distributed development been used by partners that are
• Provision of integrated testing not sharing components and
facilities for distributed tools (only local testing and
components local repositories)

• As soon as there is cross Living • No threats
Lab solution development a
common infrastructure for
design time components is key
for success – the Reference
Laboratory could serve as a
starting point
References C@R deliverable D2.6.2 – Reference Laboratory
C@R deliverable D2.6.3 – Deployment models
APOLLON Distributed development activities across Living Labs need
methodology appropriate guidance and a commonly accessible and usable design
framework time infrastructure. The Reference Laboratory is a good starging
relevance point but needs further refinement in order to make it applicable in
a general cross border Living Lab networking context.



Support and govern – Supporting services and tools

Origin Ecospace – Collaboration tools and applications
Description ECOSPACE has developed a Collaborative Working Environment

(CWE) reference architecture as well as a large set of collaboration
services and tools in an interoperable collaborative environment.
Some of the used concepts have already been contributed to
standards (W3C). There are different ways of interaction; some tools
are directly integrated in base applications or make use of a
particular functionality of them, whereas others interact with base
applications through CoCoSes (Composite Collaboration Services),
which provide a set of Web Services that act as entry points.

Expectation awareness: User can formalize a private expectation
about a user-‐behavior in relation to a shared artifact (e.g. Document,
Folder, etc.)

Document Tagging: Implementation of the popular Web2.0
tagging-‐paradigm in relation to artifacts like files and folders.

Workspace Awareness: Combination of Shared Workspace and
Instant Messenger, that provides availability information of
different users in a workspace.

CWE-Blog: Integration of blog-‐software as own artifact-‐type in
Shared Workspaces-‐System.

CWE-Task Management: Extension provides full functional
task-‐management system in relation to shared documents and
resources.

CWE-Portal Modules: User are able to organize and layout their
own portal with functions of BSCW and third party tools and
information.

SWAPit: Application provides (visual) retrieval functionalities for

measuring the involvement of a user in respect to a special topic.

MARTE 30. Conferencing: Web-‐based multimedia conferencing
application with shared desktop and rooms support

VCS Meeting Space: Supports team meetings from planning,
running them including VoIP/conferencing, to capturing minutes in
a highly process oriented way.

VCS Skype Integration: Makes Skype presence and communication
functionalities securely available inside collaborative workspaces.

Sharing Support: context-‐driven e-‐mail attachments sharing with
mail body, on BSCW. Reduce documents redundancy on local &
network repositories-‐

Teambuilder & Evaluator Tool: Supports the retrieval of adequate
manpower in respect to the competencies required in a project.

Jammeswm: Mobile Application which gives access to a Shared
Workspace in a user friendly way and includes presence and instant
messaging features.

TM4Wiki Editor & Browser: Authoring environment that supports
the creation, maintenance, and use of ontology-‐aware repositories of
objects based on the ISO standard – Topic Maps.

AJAX Application for CoCoS: “Upload Document and Notify Users
“: Application performs exemplary a common working task. Provide
a created document and inform coworkers about the new document.

Synchronous Collaborative Tool: Tool provides synchronous
communication functions for two or more people. These
functionalities will be used for Webservice-‐purposes in the
ECOSPACE.

The Assessment of Knowledge Worker Team Productivity:
Supports measurement of team productivity.

Annotation Based Access Control with UncleShare: Access
control mechanism based on Annotation developed as a widget
using SOA.

Holmes: Social Network Extractor and Analyzer: Extracting social
networks (weighted graphs) using log files of shared workspaces


Expertise Extractor Using Online Shared Workspaces: Extracting
expertise from shared workspaces using document-‐based events.

SIOC Xplore Widget: Widget provides cross CWEplatform semantic
querying and data integration.

CWE Data Importer & Exporter: Facilitating the interchange of
data between CWEs

RFID2Doc: Toolset (RFID-‐Reader, Document-‐Management-‐System)
enables retrieval of meta-‐information of printed documents.

Post‐@ Communicator: An easy to use, pure presence & IM system,
indicating if and where someone is working and via which channels
they can be reached (PC, phone, GSM, IM or other attached systems).

Role Based Access Control Standard with DFOAF: Based on FOAF,
this tool supports the construction of trusted people-‐networks
based on weighted person to person relations.
• Comprehensive set of tools and • Extensive real life application
applications for CWEs of and testing of tools across
information workers different Living Labs is missing
• Toolset could be adapted and • No threats
applied in a wide context of
Living Lab networks
References Ecospace – Tools brochure
APOLLON The proclaimed lightweight approach of Ecospace in developing

methodology tools and applications that support the collaboration of information
framework professionals offers opportunities for further exploitation within
relevance networking Living Labs. Therefore these tools or modifications of
them should form part of the methodology framework for APOLLON.

7.4 Manage and Track



Monitoring & Assessment – Impact assessment

Origin COLLABS Best Practice Assessment
Description Best Practice Analysis framework, based on the harmonization cube.
This framework is especially targeted towards SME engagement,
which is the focus area also for APOLLON project. The assessment
dimensions include: user involvement, service creation,
infrastructure, governance, innovation outcomes, as well as methods
and tools. The framework was applied for 8 living labs. The results
are available as spider-‐web diagrams. For the seven categories we
have identified three different thresholds ranging from 0 – 100. The
value 0 means that a Living Lab has nothing specific installed or
deployed in this category whereas 50 means that some specific
measures are taken.

• The framework has been • Different interpretation and
validated in COLLABS project understanding of requested
information

• The criteria is commonly • The relevance of the
accepted, and thus could be framework unless specified
partly used as bases for in more detail .
APOLLON evaluation
framework.

References Deliverable 2.2 Technical report: Current best practices of LLs and
services for SME innovation support
APOLLON A common Monitoring & Assessment framework could be of benefit
methodology to networked Living Labs in many ways and should form part of the
framework methodology & tools framework. Combined with the results from

relevance the other SOTA initiatives, the harmonization cube would create
good bases for work.

Monitoring & Assessment – Success criteria, Living Lab network
sustainability

Concept category Model
Origin COLLABS D4.2: sustainability plan
Description The sustainability and viability plan for the CO-‐LLABS network after
its formal project duration. To this aim, the CO-‐LLABS Thematic
Network is working jointly with the European Network of Living
Labs (ENoLL) and the AMbient Innovation Family of Communities
(AMI Communities) in order to shape an evolved structure able to
set a stronger synergy with the Living Lab movement, which
promises to become the most important Open Innovation
mechanism in Europe.
This deliverable describes the process of forming and structuring
ENoLL, the most sustainable Living Lab network in Europe.


• Real life example of network • May not be applicable since most
creation networks are much smaller

• Learning from mistakes and • Directly copying does not
improving the process advance research and practice

References Deliverable 4.2 -‐ Joint action plan and roadmap towards
sustainability
APOLLON Network sustainability is a major consideration also in APOLLON.

methodology ENoLL formation is a great example of network creation and should
framework be closely followed in APOLLON project.
relevance

Monitoring & Assessment – Impact assessment

Concept category Tool/Methodology
Origin Collaboration at Rural (C@R) – M&A Framework
Description Monitoring, assessment and evaluation has been a continuous

activity within all C@R living labs. The introduction of the cyclic and
spiral development approach and the introduction and acceptation
within the project of action research methodology principles, has
brought a more systematic
approach to organizing, implementing and monitoring the main
innovation and experimentation activities in the Living Labs. This
approach has been applied as a common framework to all Living
Labs in order to gain synergies in terms of identification of overlaps,
comparability and applicability of innovation process etc.
Due to the evolution of the C@R Living Labs, this framework has
evolved over time. The upgraded framework is focused on the
following categories:
1) Living lab External Context
This category is related to identifying and describing the Living Lab
external context and trends driving living lab developments (e.g.
funding available, strategic partners business needs, rural policy
changes).
2) Living Lab Innovation resources
This category is related to the Living Lab resources in the beginning
of the time period under study, concretely: network infrastructure,
experimentation resources and tools, know-‐how, funds, user and
business support base etc.

3) Living Lab Innovation processes
This category is related to observing the unfolding innovation
processes in the living lab. We may best observe these processes in
terms of actions of / interactions among actors, decision making,
resulting decisions and their effects. We have chosen to structure
these observations using the Action Research framework of cyclic
phases (reformulated into main living labs processes of Preparation,
Deployment and testing, Use, Learning). It has turned to be best to
concentrate these observations on critical living lab innovation
processes, such as:
· Living lab community building, involving stakeholders, and its
evolution
· cooperation between developers and users in developing tools and
applications
· users interacting with (prototype) tools and applications in their
work environment
· validation, evaluation and learning activities.
4) User involvement and feedback processes
Because of its importance we specifically address this category. It is
related to the decisions and processes to achieve user involvement
and to the actual processes of user involvement and creation as
unfolding in the living lab. Examples: joint design and development,
applications cocreation, and at least provision of feedback to
designers. This will allow us to observe, understand and assess the
role of the Living lab as an environment of open, cooperative and
real-‐life innovation.
5) Other related processes
This category is related to observing other activities, interactions or
events that are part of what is happening in the Living Labs. Specific
information to gather in the scope of this category is (only if
processes of these types actually can be observed):
· Strategic management of the living lab
· Operational management of the living lab
· Infrastructure management
· Support to the users of the Living Lab
· Incubation processes and services.
6) Impacts and value creation
This category addresses the observation of effects of the living labs

innovation activities, and the assessment of the value (benefits)
creation based on these effects. The value creation concept is to be
considered as a very important concept to understand the benefits
of Living labs, both in terms of value creation results and in terms of
the value creation mechanism itself. The value created by the Living
lab approach consists of two types of value:
· Value of the concrete Living lab innovation results. For example the
value of
collaboration platform and collaboration tools for its direct
stakeholders (e.g. users, increasing their productivity) as well as for
the wider rural environment (e.g. contributing to rural
infrastructure);
· Value of the Living lab approach as an innovation environment.
Again this involves value for stakeholders (e.g. providing them an
open collaboration environment) as well as value for the wider rural
environment (e.g. enabling future innovation activities and
collaborations).
7) Living Lab maturity
This category aims to observe and benchmark the current
development phase and quality of the Living Lab, using several
criteria mainly related to aspects of openness, cooperation and real
life innovation environment . The criteria included in this category
address the following topics:
· Level of cooperation based on public-‐private partnerships,
cooperation with technology and applications providers;
· Early and continuous involvement of citizens / the general public /
users / other stakeholders in real-‐life innovation; establishment of
forms of user co-‐creation;
· Cyclic and interactive learning-‐based approach (non-‐linear, non-‐
waterfall) of design – prototyping – use -‐ evaluation – redesign –
learning;
· Openness for new partners to enter the collaborative innovation
(users, providers).

• Applied in real life over a period • Different interpretation and
of 4 cycles (3 monthly) understanding of requested
• Reflects incremental information
improvements based on action • Common approach doesn’t allow
based learning for tailored M&A according to
• Qualitative and quantitative KPIs maturity state, context etc.

• Better comparability of • Living lab stakeholders might be
networked Living Labs through afraid to disclose true information
more rigid and simplified about the current state of
application of framework progress and impact

References C@R Deliverable D3.1.3: Living Labs Analysis and Assessment

Report, C@R consortium
APOLLON A common Monitoring & Assessment framework could be of benefit
methodology to networked Living Labs in many ways and should form part of the
framework methodology & tools framework. Based on the findings and lessons
relevance learned of C@R an adapted and contextual version of the M&A
framework need to be developed for application within the 4
vertical pilots.

Manage and track – Success Criteria

Concept category Methodology/Model
Origin CoreLabs – D3.1a – Innovation Aspects, Prerequisites &

Requirements
Description A Living Lab strive to stimulate innovation and creativity, hence its
ultimate success will be measured against the quantifiable, accepted
and sustainable innovation it produces. The success of a Living Lab
can be shaped around four basic elements: Innovation,
Collaboration, Multi-‐contextuality and Sustainability
Innovation:
The success factors suggested for Living Lab innovation success are:
− Number of peer-‐reviewed Publications

− Number of legally held Patents
− Number of Products that reach the market
An even more holistic approach relevant to the philosophy behind
Living Labs includes the following aspects for measuring an
innovation from different perspectives.
− Resources – human competencies, skills, knowledge, financial
resources
− Internal processes – new firms, spin-‐offs R&D activities
− Commercial – new science and technology advances in a
region illustrated bu number of patents, new to market
products, enterprises involved in clusters
− Collaboration; university R & D financed by firms, inter-‐
company collaboration and cooperation between research
institutes and enterprises.
Collaboration:
Participation among many stakeholders. But also collaboration in
terms of:
− Planned: the form that is used for long-‐term strategies
towards an established goal
− Mediated: The use of a mediator to facilitate the collaboration
between stakeholders
− Ad-‐hoc collaborations: a short-‐term and spontaneous form of
co-‐operation initiated for a specific situation
Multi-Contextuality:
By introducing an environment of multiple and diverse dimensions,
users can contribute, evaluate and be evaluated in a real-‐life
situation free of conscious and often contrived reminders that a
traditional testing environment might evoke.
Sustainability:
This is an issue that becomes an indicator of the long-‐term success of
the individual Living Labs. The meaning of sustainable for regions
and individuals are:
− Employment Creation & Longevity: the aim is to stimulate
innovation and enterprise of participating regions and thus
the prosperity.
− Inclusion: Provide and environment that enables the
understanding of diversities in terms of age, culture, gender,

ethnicity, national.
Competitiveness: The creation of a Pan-‐European Living labq as a
supporting infrastructure for innovation.

• Provides a basis for assessment of • May not be applicable due to its
Living Lab success focus on individual Living Labs
• The criterions has not been

tested and validated in real-‐life
situations

• Its categories can be further •
developed and assessed in the
Apollon project

References D3.1a – Innovation Aspects, Prerequisities & Requirements
APOLLON Assessing the impact and evaluating the outcomes of a Living Lab or
methodology network of Living Lab is essential
framework
relevance

8. Conclusions

The APOLLON partners consider the state of the art that has been put together in this deliverable
as representative and comprehensive. APOLLON is very well networked and comprise some of
the key pioneering stakeholders of past and ongoing Living Lab initiatives in person.
No dedicated Living Lab networking initiative has been detected on an operational level.
Initiatives like ENoLL rather concentrate on dissemination of know-how and the formation of a
larger Living Lab community. The networking aspect of the Living Lab methodology is therefore
not very well investigated reconfirming the necessity for APOLLON to develop the methodology
framework for cross border Living Lab networks.
objective for all of these is similar: to know each partner better and to learn from each other. The

exchange of best practices and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network.
Subsequently, the activities are targeted to facilitate and achieve this. The harmonization and
integration of tools and methods between the partners are considered as a next step in the
cooperation between the members of the network. The objective here is to have a set of tools,
methods or even infrastructure that enables to exchange comparable information, to perform
research in a similar way within the various Living labs that are part of the network. Finally, a
third objective that the networks indicated is performing joint research. Here the aim is that
between partners of the various Living labs and over the border of each Living Lab research on a
larger scale is set-up and executed.
However, currently most of the networks are relatively new and are in still in the exploratory
phase. This is the case for e.g. EnoLL, Inoll,etc. .When the network has produced concrete
output, it is still more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs.
For example, the Nordic network of Living Labs has created a toolbox (see www.lltoolbox.eu),
this is at the moment more an inventory of all possible user centered research methods that can be
applied, then a common research framework or toolset that is applied in each of the Living Labs.
However, to a certain extent relevant methodologies, tools, governance and organizational

structures are existing applicable at all stages of the LL networking lifecycle. They range e.g.
from technological solutions (e.g. reference architectures for Collaborative Working
Environments (CWEs), collaboration tools) to common frameworks and models (e.g. Monitoring
& Assessment, roles & responsibilities).
The Support & Govern category is most prominently represented in terms of state of the art.
Obviously the need to co-innovate across 2 or more Living Labs has brought up initial
methodologies and tools that support the actual solution development between partners belonging
to different Living Labs. In some cases the development of supporting structures, methodologies
and tools has not been investigated systematically and offer big potential for the APOLLON
consortium to take them to the next level.
In general the potential of available methodologies & tools and structures adding value to
participating Living Labs of a synergetic network seems to be huge. In any case, no one of the
interviewed experts have provided final answers on the constitution of a methodological
framework for cross border Living Lab networks and further research on the ground need to be
invested.
A simple SWOT analysis indicated that one of the shortcomings of state of the art methodologies
and tools is the poor application in real life experiments in particular across 2 or more Living
Labs. Therefore extensive experience with some promising methods and tools are missing despite
of their obvious applicability in a network of cross border Living Labs.
At least some of the available Living Lab methods and tools have been well applied in real life on
individual level but not in a networking context. The modification of these methods and tools for
networking purposes offers a good starting point for the APOLLON methodology framework.
This SOTA analysis will now serve as a starting point for further APOLLON tasks also within
work package 1 – Methodology and Tools. In particular the requirements elicitation process for

the APOLLON methodology framework (task 1.2) and the Collaboration Process and Living Lab
Network engagement model (task 1.4) should profit from the results of this study.
9. References
[1] Gassmann, 2006, Opening Up the Innovation Process: Towards and Agenda, R&D
Management, 36,3,223-228
[2] Munsch 2009,
[3] Ramírez 1993, From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy,
Harvard Business Review, 71, 7, 65-77
[4] Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004, The future of competition: co-creating unique value with
customers, Harvard Business School Press, ISBN: 9781578519538
[5] Rosted, 2009, National Innovation Strategy for Finland, Ministry of Economic Affairs,
Finland
[6] Wenger et al, 2002, Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge.
Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
[7] Mitchell, Boyle, 2010, Knowledge and Organisation: a social-practice perspective, Journal of
Organization Science
Appendix A - SOTA interview guideline

The following questionnaire have been used as a guideline for the different interviews. Individual
adaptations have been introduced by the different interviewers to reflect the targeted interviewee.

APOLLON approach/background
LL networking methodology framework
The main objectives for the horizontal WP APOLLON Methodology & Tools are to create
• a Methodology for (setting-‐up) a cross-‐border network of Living Labs
• an Approach to apply and validate the methodology within the APOLLON project
• a Framework to measure its success within the APOLLON project
The APOLLON methodology & tool set will build on best practices and lessons learned from
earlier Living Lab network initiatives and the vertical domain-‐specific Living Lab networks
set-‐up as the four experiments within APOLLON. It will consist of an adaptable framework
for planning, specifying, building, and implementing practical and theoretical aspects of
Living Lab networks.

The APOLLON methodology and tool set aims at providing support and help for sharing and
harmonizing Living Lab platforms between thematic cross-‐border networks of European
Living Labs as far as relevant with the practical realities of the available technologies, actors
and business environments. APOLLON methodology & tool set will thus address how to find
synergies between the actors, scale up lead markets, facilitate strategic partnerships
between innovative SMEs and micro entrepreneurs, orchestrate systematic RDI processes
and stimulate cross-‐border innovation in Europe.
State of the art analysis
This task will create a catalogue of the most successful governance structures, ecosystem
set ups and lessons learned from earlier Living Lab projects (as far as they are of relevance
for cross-‐border networks of Living Labs) identified State-‐of-‐the-‐Art Living Lab network
initiatives, as well as from the thematic Living Lab networks within the APOLLON project. It
will also catalogue existing tools for cross-‐border Living Lab collaboration.

1. Background information

1. Your name/organisation:

2. What kind of initiative or project do you represent?

3. What’s the purpose/objective of the initiative or project?

4. What is the duration/timeline of your initiative or project?

5. Please state the main achievements and shortcomings of your initiative or project?

2. General
1. How are Living Labs involved in your initiative or project?

2. How many Living Labs are forming part of your initiative? Who are they?

3. Who are the stakeholders of the Living Labs?

• Public and Civic Communities
• Public and Regional Authorities
• Industry
• SME’s
• Academia
• Investors
• Content Providers
• Other

4. What kinds of LL methodologies have been experimented with?

5. Which methodologies have been successfully applied?

6. In what way do you consider the Living Lab methodologies superior than traditional
methodologies?

7. Do you see any benefits in collaborating with other Living Labs? Which benefits do you see?

8. In which stage of LL lifecycle do you consider LL networking/collaboration as most beneficial?
Why?

9. What aspects of LL collaboration has been part of your initiative?

10. What kind of concrete collaborations has been part of your initiative?

11. Which tools have been dedicated to support LL networking/collaboration?

12. How successful a particular tool has been applied?

13. Based on your experience, what do you consider helpful/beneficial in LL networking?


14. Did you gain any measurable impact of LL networking/collaboration for your individual LL
performance?

15. What kind of LL collaboration is further needed in your personal environment?

16. Is there any documentation available in terms of LL networking results? What kind of?

3. Category questions

Connect

LL networking initiation

1. How was the LL networking/collaboration initiated in your project?

2. What criteria did you apply to choose your LLs to collaborate with?

3. What helps you to identify Living Labs that may be relevant for you to collaborate with?

4. What kind of working relationship needs to be established in order to enable collaboration
between Living Labs?

5. What kind of collaboration in a network of Living Labs is beneficial to you?

6. What expertise have you gained from Living Lab networking?

Policy frameworks & regulations

1. To what extent is your business affected by local policies and regulations?


2. To what extent is your initiative or project affected by local policies and regulations?

3. In what way foreign regulations and policies influenced your collaboration between LLs?

4. Have you ever been supported/impeded by foreign regulations when collaborating with cross-‐
border Living Labs?

5. Are there regulatory bottlenecks for cross-‐border PPPs?

Set boundaries and engage

LL network business model

1. Do you make any difference in business relationships between local Living Lab partners and
partners from cross-‐border Living Labs?

2. What sources of funding come into question to establish collaborative partnerships with other
Living Labs?

3. Which resources are involved in LL co-‐operation? (e.g. competencies, job profiles that
co-‐operation partner have)

4. What is the individual stakeholders’ added value of LL cooperation?

5. What kind of business modalities, working relationships, governance and legal frameworks apply
to your LL cooperation?

6. How did you handle IPR issues in a network of Living Labs?

Collaborative solution development

1. Have you collaborated between two or more Living Labs to develop solutions?

2. How did you handle a distributed development team? Did you use specific methods or tools to
support distributed development?

3. Have you ever reused components, methods or tools from other Living Labs to drive your
solution development?

4. What helped you accelerating and quality improving your solution development in a network of
Living Labs?

Cross LL user interaction

1. Have you ever extended user interaction beyond single Living Labs?

2. Is there a need to access other end user communities beyond the ones available in local Living
Lab? If yes, why?

3. Which Methods and Tools are used in the Living Lab network e.g. to integrate end-‐user
communities?

4. In which process phases are the users involved in cross-‐border Living Lab networks? (front end
(p-‐idea, p-‐concept) or in the back-‐end (p-‐development, market launch)

Cross border field experimentation


1. Have you ever applied methods or tools across different Living Labs to do some field
experimentation?

2. Do you consider field experiments in other contexts (using the infrastructure of collaborating
Living Labs) as beneficial for your business/project? If yes, what kind of benefits could you get?

Manage and track

Monitoring and assessment

1. What framework do you use for M&E?

2. Do you apply a M&E framework that is applied in other Living Labs as well?

3. Do you monitor the added value of collaboration with other Living Labs?

Commercialisation

1. Have you ever reached the stage of commercialization of new products and services?

2. What supports/prevents commercialization of new products and services from your point of
view?

3. Could collaboration with other Living Labs help you to enter the stage or accelerate
commercialization?




Apollon - A Catalogue of State-Of-The-Art Concepts, Existing Tools and Lessons Learned For Crossborder Living Lab Networks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Apollon - A Catalogue of State-Of-The-Art Concepts, Existing Tools and Lessons Learned For Crossborder Living Lab Networks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Acronym: APOLLON

Grant Agreement number: 250516

Project Title: Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks

Anna Ståhlbröst (LTU)

2 Final version, 21/05/2010

3 Final version, 21/05/2010

4 Final version, 21/05/2010

5 Final version, 21/05/2010

6 Final version, 21/05/2010

7 Final version, 21/05/2010

The APOLLON methodology will address interoperability challenges in cross-border Living

8 Final version, 21/05/2010

The document is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 and 2 provide a summary and introduction respectively.

9 Final version, 21/05/2010

The open approach can provide three opportunities for organizations:

1. Culture: In this theme, elements such as different perspectives on speed, resource

10 Final version, 21/05/2010

4. Living Lab networks

4.1 Towards networks of Living Labs

11 Final version, 21/05/2010

12 Final version, 21/05/2010

Technological and mass customisation aspects relevent for a network of Living

Table 1 Technological and mass customisation aspects for networked LL

4.2 Living Lab networks – definition and scope

13 Final version, 21/05/2010

The importance of common methodologies and tools is highlighted in collaborative multi-

4.3 Current networks of Living Labs

14 Final version, 21/05/2010

Level Network Short description

Open Living Labs Sweden, The OLLSE network includes 7 Swedish

15 Final version, 21/05/2010

the Netherlands by promoting it as an

UK Living labs This network consists of the UK Digital

Table 2 Overview of existing networks of Living Labs

16 Final version, 21/05/2010

Evidence of co-­‐created values from research, development and innovation

Values/Services offered/provided to LL actors

Measures to involve users

User-­‐centricity within the entire service process

Full product lifecycle support -­‐ capability & maturity

LL covers several entities within value-­‐chain(s)

Quality of user-­‐driven innovation methods and tools

Availability of required technology and/or test beds

Evidence of expertise gained from the Living Lab operations

Level of own commitment to open innovation process

IPR principles supporting capability and openness

Openness towards new partners & investors

17 Final version, 21/05/2010

Business-­‐citizens-­‐government partnership – strength & maturity

Organization of LL governance, management & operations

Business model for LL sustainability

International networking experience and capability

Channels (web etc) supporting public visibility and interaction

People/Positions dedicated to LL management & operations

4.4 Lessons learned

18 Final version, 21/05/2010

19 Final version, 21/05/2010

4.5 SWOT analysis LL networks

20 Final version, 21/05/2010

4.6 Creating the Apollon Methodology Framework

21 Final version, 21/05/2010

5. Categorization of the APOLLON Methodology Framework

Evidence of co-‐created values from research, development and innovation

User-‐centricity within the entire service process

Full product lifecycle support -‐ capability & maturity

LL covers several entities within value-‐chain(s)

Quality of user-‐driven innovation methods and tools

Business-‐citizens-‐government partnership – strength & maturity

OpenLite Veli-‐Pekka Niitamo Transcripted interview on 5th

Origin Co-‐creating Living Labs, CoreLabs, Living Lab Roadmap 2007-‐2010

References CoreLabs – Living Labs Roadmap 2007-‐2010, Recommendations on

Origin CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010

References CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010

Origin CoreLabs –Deliverable 2.3 -‐ Living Labs Roadmap 2001-‐2010