Search results

This paper presents a methodological analysis of the co-creation and evaluation of “Biobot Academy” social marketing program to promote socio-emotional skills and prosocial behaviour in children, using a Living Lab method. This paper aims to identify how using a Living Lab method can enhance the co-creation and evaluation of a gamified social marketing program with users and stakeholders. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to apply and further develop a Living Lab framework to guide social marketing program design.

Using a case study method, the Living Lab process was applied during the development of the gamified social marketing program for promoting socio-emotional skills and prosocial behaviour in children. In total, 28 online and in-person sessions over a two-year period led to program co-creation. Guided by a mixed method approach, testing was conducted in a non-randomised waitlist control trial, while qualitative data from in-game data capture, classroom observations and recordings were collected.

The application of the Living Lab method warranted improvements, specifically to the front-end and back-end steps of the existing process. While the non-randomised trial indicated effectiveness of the social marketing program across all outcome measures (self-awareness, empathy and prosocial behaviour intentions) compared to control, qualitative findings showed program improvements were needed on three specific aspects, namely, interactivity, user experience and comprehension.

This study provides methodological guidance for the application of the Living Lab method in other social marketing settings to help co-create innovative social marketing solutions with diverse stakeholder groups.

There has been a high rate of failure among the Living Labs in Kenya resulting in the expected outcomes not fully realized. This paper aims to assess the sustainability of Living Labs in Kenya.

Based on the four capital method of sustainable development evaluation framework, data were collected through interviews and questionnaires from innovators, users and employees among the 25 living labs in Kenya.

The research found that some innovators are not familiar with the living labs, the living labs are innovative and prepared to survive in future, some labs have strategic plans on how to pursue future environment and have developed ways of choosing right people to incubate, inability to get enough funding from the host organizations and limited knowledge on the supervision level of the operations. A model is proposed that can be generalized to other living labs in developing countries.

The study was done in Nairobi where most of the living labs are situated.

The study concludes by emphasizing on the user involvement during innovation process. There is need to expand the capacities of living labs to accommodate more people to ensure more innovations are supported at a time. The senior managers in charge of the living labs should increase the level of supervision to ensure that the labs are effective in their incubation efforts and institutionalize support of the host organization to the labs to ensure continued growth and expansion.

The findings of this study are of value to research community, the decision and policymakers as it seeks to document the current status of the living labs in the Kenya

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the factors playing a role in the engagement of end-users to participate in Living Lab field trials.

Multiple case study analysis of three Living Lab cases in which field trials were organized.

Based on academic literature on field trials, user engagement and the technology acceptance model, the authors argue that several factors play a role in the participation of users in field trials. An influential factor that emerged is the functional maturity of the innovation, the extent to which a prototype resembles the functionalities and the processes of the final, go-to-market product at the moment of the field trial. Within this exploratory paper, we propose the “user engagement model for field trials” to explain the factors that play a role in the engagement of end-users in field trials.

The methodological limitations of a case study design make it difficult to extrapolate the findings toward a larger sample. Therefore, this paper focuses on making an in-depth analysis rather than making general claims. However, the insights regarding user engagement for participation pave the way for future validation on a larger scale and suggest future research directions.

The findings of this paper suggest that Living Lab field trials should carefully take into account the (perceived) functional maturity of the innovation and the specific characteristics of the innovation when engaging end-users for field trials. Interaction and trust between the test-users and the other stakeholders is of great importance for the active engagement of test-users during field trials.

This exploratory paper adds to a general understanding of end-user involvement in innovation development processes and suggests guidelines to engage end-users to participate in field trials. In addition, it introduces the concept of functional maturity of innovations and the user-engagement model for field trials.

This study aims to investigate how Living Labs of Van Hall Larenstein UAS perform as sustainability-oriented, transdisciplinary learning environments. It shows how the sustainable development goals (SDGs) can be used as a compass and debates the sustainability impact of applied research.

A case study approach was adopted, including a literature review, scoping visits, online workshops and peer-to-peer inter-vision/learning, using the SDGs as a compass and framework for analysis.

Most Living Labs use a “silo-approach” on the SDGs and are designed from a technological-expert perspective. This results in blind spots, particularly on SDGs related to reducing socio-economic inequality and just institutions. Debating unsustainable systems, cultures and practices is avoided. To contribute to sustainability transitions, universities need to invest in developing transformative capacity. This refers to SDG-transition competences such as collaborative communication, constructively engaging with diversity and conflicts, discussing values, norms and ethics and encouraging reflexivity.

Mainly lecturer-researchers were involved in the study. COVID-19 travel restrictions hindered the research at the grassroots level in India and Indonesia.

The study revealed the importance of creating Living Labs as safe and brave inter- and transdisciplinary learning environments to practice reflexivity: encouraging students, researchers and stakeholders to look at sustainability issues from plural perspectives and questioning unsustainable practices, which combined lead to changing perceptions, practices and relations and a deeper understanding of how change happens. The SDGs as a compass method supports reflexivity among stakeholders and in redirecting strategies towards a sustainable future.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a more socially centred understanding of living labs for urban research questions by reflecting on current technologically centred and innovation-driven approaches.

The paper takes the form of literature review complemented by conceptual knowledge from practical experiences.

Urban living labs, as they were introduced from a technological and economic point of view, have to be translated into the context of social sciences. By doing so, they may be a promising tool to stimulate co-creation and collaboration also in urban research projects that focus on social research questions and include diverse target groups. Socially centred living labs take into account the local context by developing a space of encounter for the participants in the urban living lab and by implementing a set of living methods that suit both the research design and the local requirements.

This paper argues that urban living labs can be a valuable tool in urban research to include researchers, politicians, local stakeholders and residents in an open concept of co-creation. It argues that a locally contextualised design in terms of space and methods is necessary to create an environment of trust and collaboration.

This paper aims to explore how Living Labs might be evaluated, building on the current efforts of the European Network of Living Lab (ENoLL) to encourage new members, and complementing their existing criteria with elements from business model development strategies – specifically the Business Model Canvas (BMC) (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010).

First, it is explored how Living Labs have emerged, at the intersection of transition management, open innovation and collaborative consumption. It is then suggested that the BMC could be a complementary tool in Living Lab evaluation.

This tool helped identify three important elements missing from current ENoLL evaluation criteria: identification of the cost structure, customer segments and the revenue stream. The case study of an Energy Living Lab created in Western Switzerland is used to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of different evaluation criteria; this paper is then concluded with some ideas on how future research might contribute to further strengthening Living Lab evaluation process towards long-term “sustainability”.

This article will be of value for ENoLL to refine their evaluation criteria for the next “wave” of application. It could as well help living labs to reflect on how to keep a living lab alive.

The purpose of this paper is to explore social living labs as a participatory methodology and context for fostering digital literacy and community well-being. This approach is examined through a case study of Food Rescue Townsville, a voluntary community organisation in North Queensland, Australia.

Using qualitative case study methodology, the research investigated volunteers’ experience of a social living lab where they selected, installed and used open source Food Rescue Robot software.

The social living lab enhanced volunteers’ digital literacy and the organisation’s efficiency. The participatory nature and transformative intentions of social living labs are similar to action research as both promote social change through collaboration.

The case study intentionally focuses on one community organisation to gain in-depth insights of a real-life social living lab.

The paper models an innovative approach that contributes to community learning and well-being. It presents a social living labs framework for digital literacy development that is underpinned by participatory action research cycle and integrates informed learning principles. Social living labs provide a learning context and approach that extends beyond digital skills instruction to a holistic process of using information to learn. They enable individuals to participate as digital citizens in the creation, curation and use of digital information.

Informed digital learning through social living labs addresses the digital divide by fostering digital participation, volunteering and community engagement.

The paper is of interest to researchers, information literacy educators and community groups. Theoretical insights and participatory practices of the Food Rescue Townsville case, and the proposed social living labs framework are transferable to other communities.

Universities have recognized their rich endowments in research, academic skills and facilities, as uniquely suited to finding “green” solutions. Moreover, the campus setting itself presents as a microcosm of greater society through which to investigate and test innovations. Thus, the “living lab” was born, a means of coupling sufficient resources and active stakeholders in the pursuit of practical, sustainable solutions. Much of the work to date, however, remains piecemeal, small-scale and disparate. This study aims to propose that the work of such labs must ultimately be directed, coordinated and integrated under a “university sustainability office,” if they are to be ultimately effective.

The research approach is twofold. In the first instance, a literature review charting the history and progress of living labs is reported, with emphasis of the university context. Second, a case study appraisal of Deakin University’s initiatives in adopting and promoting sustainability through the living lab framework is undertaken.

A main finding of this paper is that current efforts remain piecemeal and peripheral. If the apparent ambiguity regarding commitment is to be overcome, Deakin University should adopt measures as adopted by peer leaders in the field. Specifically, the setting up of a centralizing sustainability function bestowed with the capacity to coordinate university-wide living lab efforts, and at such a scale that substantial benefits transferable to greater society is generated.

This paper stands out among previous studies in the field through facilitating a transition to living lab for other universities, where findings facilitate that progress and consider how the lessons learnt might inform the further evolution of university living lab initiatives.

This study aims to focus on living labs as a means of achieving radical innovation by discussing the differences in their network structure and its effect on the type of innovation outcome.

This research analyses 24 living labs in four countries using qualitative methods.

A specific network structure referred to as a distributed multiplex supports radical innovation in living labs, while distributed and centralized network structures support incremental innovations. Also, the results suggest that radical innovation depends on the driving actor and objectives in a living lab.

A bias on the perceived novelty of innovation may exist when analyzing data collected through interviews with a limited number of living lab participants compared to a large number of informants. This study proposes a two-dimensional framework based on the network structure to investigate innovation in living labs.

This paper offers a classification tool to identify, categorize and make sense of organizations’ participation in open innovation networks and in living labs.

The study provides evidence that, although the distributed multiplex network structure supports the emergence of radical innovations, the distributed and centralized network structures support incremental innovation. A combination of a provider- or utilizer-driven living lab and a distributed multiplex network structure, with a clearly defined and future-oriented strategic objective, offers good potential for radical innovation to occur.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a Living Lab protocol to evaluate interventions for people with dementia in context. The number of people with dementia is continuously growing, resulting in all kinds of societal challenges. As there is no cure for the diseases today, there is a need to look at alternative ways to combat these challenges, like the design of suitable interventions. These can support people with dementia to live more independent, with a higher quality of life. The protocol is developed over three Living Lab cases. In this, the authors focus on how to involve people living with dementia and the Living Lab stakeholder network.

Over three Living Lab cases, 26 people with dementia, and their caregivers, participated. In these cases, the authors focussed on three different interventions, namely: a reminder system, a daylight lamp and a mobile interface. Yet, a similar protocol was implemented that was built upon insights from its previous case. Hereby, the authors gathered hands-on insights concerning the design and implementation of a Living Lab protocol. Finally, the authors propose a protocol for those interested in pursuing similar goals.

For the resulting proposal, the authors found that it is important to actively involve the relevant Living Lab stakeholders from the start of the process. Because, first, care stakeholders protect participants as gatekeepers, and have a general interest in the interventions. Second, for industry stakeholders, the in-context Living Lab set-up needs to be aligned with their needs to gather usable insights for their interventions. Finally, the authors propose to keep the users engaged beyond the studies by facilitating a Living Lab community. This leads to a higher user engagement and a wider pool to select from for future Living Lab sessions.

However, the authors have to be careful to base conclusions on this protocol, due to the limited number of participants and, therefore, the authors suggest this is investigated further. Additionally, the authors feel the role of stakeholders, and who is in the lead, should be investigated further.

By reflecting on three Living Lab cases, the authors propose a ready-to-use Living Lab protocol that can be applied by anybody who is interested to design more suitable interventions for impaired users.

The building of a community as a basis of a Living Lab provides opportunities for all relevant stakeholders, and could reach beyond the development of interventions.

The paper provides hands-on insights on applying and developing a Living Lab protocol. This is done by structurally involving relevant stakeholders, while continuously adapting to the user’s needs. Only by continuing to do so, the societal challenges can successfully be addressed.