Content uploaded by Hans Schaffers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hans Schaffers
Content may be subject to copyright.
Collaboration Support for Cross-Border
Networks of Living Labs
Hans Schaffers1, Mari Runardotter2, Bram Lievens3, Claudio Vandi4
1Aalto University School of Economics (CKIR), Aalto, Finland, hans.schaffers@aalto.fi
2CDT, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden, mari.runardotter@ltu.se
3IBBT-SMIT-VUB, Brussel, Belgium {bram.lievens@vub.ac.be}
4Lutin CHArt Laboratory, Université de Paris 8 {vandi@lutin-userlab.fr}
Abstract
During the last years, the concept of Living Labs as environments of user driven and collaborative innovation has
received much attention. Until recently, collaboration and networking between single living labs has not been much
of an issue. The APOLLON project has now extended the concept of single living labs to cross-border networks of
living labs aiming to support SMEs innovation and access to international markets. APOLLON demonstrates the
opportunities of cross border living labs to support SMEs in four pilots in four different domains. This paper focuses
in particular on methods, tools and guidelines to support cross-border collaboration between living labs and with
SMEs. We explain the methodology that has been developed to support collaboration in initiating, planning and
establishing cross border networks of living labs within APOLLON, and provide some initial results on how the
methodology has supported the collaboration process. The paper analyses the collaboration processes and
collaboration needs and bottlenecks, and the methods that have been applied to overcome collaboration bottlenecks.
Keywords
Collaboration, Living Labs, Innovation, SMEs, Internationalisation
1 Introduction
This paper aims to present an approach and a set of methods, tools and guidelines for supporting
collaboration in cross-border networks of living labs and discusses how such collaboration can
foster SMEs innovation and internationalisation. Findings are based on the work carried out in
the APOLLON project funded in the CIP ICT-PSP. The APOLLON project undertakes to
validate the concept of cross-border networks of living labs. It does so through four pilots, each
experimenting with different forms of cross-border collaboration between living labs. Each of
these pilots covers a different situational context, a different innovation theme and different
challenges. The underlying assumption is that living labs may act as intermediaries for SMEs
who need the Living Labs expertise, organisational capabilities and networking relations in order
to gain access to international markets. In this vision, the European Network of Living Labs, to
which APOLLON has built up a strong relationship, provides the competence, managerial
capabilities and network relations to support SMEs in achieving their internationalisation goals.
The work presented in this paper stems from the “horizontal” methodology development activity
within APOLLON, which in itself is strongly connected to the “vertical” work on preparing,
implementing and evaluating the pilots. Methodology development in APOLLON aims to
support the setting up, planning, operating and managing of cross-border network of living labs
to support SMEs in their innovation and market development objectives. As different parties are
involved in setting up, planning and managing a cross border living labs network such as living
labs, SMEs, local agencies and governments the methodology to a high extent focuses on the
different aspects of collaboration.
Interrelation and interaction between horizontal and vertical activities within APOLLON creates
a setting in which methodological elements such as tools or guidelines for structuring and
supporting collaboration emerge both bottom up within the pilot settings and top down from
elaborating various methodological concepts. Through this interaction process, it is expected that
the needs for collaboration support and the available methodologies become better aligned. This
process shows some characteristics of action research [Baskerville 1999] as researchers involved
in methodology development acted as liaisons and contributors within the pilot environments as
well, and as an interactive, cyclic process of problem driven innovation is emerging in the pilots.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 of this paper presents background regarding
collaboration in cross-border living labs and introduces the approach. Section 3 presents four
pilot cases of cross-border collaboration. Finally, section 4 elaborates a cross-case analysis and
draws conclusions.
2 Background and Approach
The central issue in this paper is collaboration to develop and run the living labs network. Of
specific relevance is previous work on collaborative networked organisations, which covers the
setting up and planning of collaborative networks as well as specific processes such as partner
selection, negotiation and IP management [Camarinha-Matos et al. 2008]. In APOLLON we are
mostly interested in creating an ad-hoc project-based collaborative network, for the purpose of
designing, implementing and evaluating a business project.
The ongoing trend towards globalisation and competition forces SMEs to explore international
markets. At the same time many SMEs experience difficulties in finding partners and building up
and maintaining an international network. Local innovation intermediaries are not always in a
position or do not have the resources to support SMEs in this respect. For this reason living labs
organised within the European Network of Living Labs may find a mission in supporting SMEs
innovation and internationalisation. So far, living labs mostly act as single entities in urban or
regional contexts. Previous work in the C@R project related to collaboration among living labs
in rural areas was limited to providing a common technology platform facilitating the sharing
and reusing collaboration services and tools [Schaffers et al. 2010]. The currently observed level
of networking among living labs is mostly to exchange experiences, practices and methods. The
new challenge for living labs networking is to elaborate and adopt structures, processes and tools
enabling a professional level of international collaboration.
At the basis of approach to methodology development and validation lies a design-science
oriented research framework which has also interesting relations to action research [March and
Smith 1995; Sein et al. 2011]. This framework is based on two dimensions: research activities
and research outputs. Research outputs includes four layers of artifacts: 1. constructs for
characterisation of phenomena; 2. models to describe tasks and situations; 3. methods and how-
to knowledge; and 4. instantiations which actually can be seen as the pilot results in terms of
prototypes and implementations. For APOLLON in particular the layers 3 and 4 of methodology
and instantiation are the most important as they represent the primary outcomes of the project.
The second dimension of research activities includes activities aimed at design (building and
evaluating the artifact) and understanding (theorizing on the characteristics of the artefact and
justifying a generalisation based on evidence). We have interpreted this framework as placing
central attention to the instantiation of the cross-border living labs network which essentially is a
socio-technical system. The living labs network also includes a methodology support structure
consisting of methods and tools. Both methodology and pilot instantiation activities within
APOLLON go through cycles of design and understanding which is organised through dedicated
tasks related to pilot and methodology preparation, deployment, implementation and evaluation.
Specific cross border aspects of setting up, operating and managing living labs networks and
cross border aspects of innovation and market creation arise because of the existence of
“differences”. First, differences in cultures and practices of human and organizational
collaboration, and related aspects of decision making, design traditions etc. affect processes of
collaborative innovation and market creation and require enhancement of trust and understanding
as well as creating common organizational approaches and common visions. Second, differences
in business ecosystems or value networks include the existence of different actor roles,
responsibilities, organizations, which requires finding appropriate partners and ensuring that
roles and responsibilities are met. Third, different local and national rules and regulations, e.g.
the existence of different regulatory and competition frameworks in healthcare and energy
sectors across countries, or different frameworks for IPR and contracting, which requires the
modification or adaptation of these frameworks. Finally, differences in technical systems,
requiring interoperability, standards and local adaptation of systems to user environments.
Collaboration in the context of cross border living labs networks involves a wide range of issues.
APOLLON developed high-level scenario storylines in order to structure the process of setting
up, planning and running a cross border living labs network which also helps in identifying the
collaboration methodology needs. The process starts when international business opportunities
emerge for the SME; thereafter the SME contacts a local living lab which establishes
collaboration with other living labs cross-border and with foreign partners. The innovation or
market development project is defined and collaboration agreements defined. The project is
implemented, managed and finally concluded. The major phases identified are as follows:
•Connect: identifying opportunities for joint innovation and market development, and
identifying potential partners for collaboration.
•Plan and engage: Definition of roles and responsibilities of the partners, building and
planning the network, finalising agreements and contracts.
•Support and govern: Joint testing, innovation and market development activities.
The approach is to analyse and understand collaboration and to develop a process of introducing,
adopting and evaluating methods, tools and guidelines to enhance collaboration. Table 1 presents
the main collaboration issues in a framework defined by the dimensions of phases (connect, plan
and support) and scope levels (strategic and operational). Applying this typology, collaboration
issues can be identified in three types: 1. Collaboration structure e.g. how to define a business
model or an agreement; 2. Collaboration process e.g. how to conceive a contract negotiation
process; and 3. Collaboration tools e.g. for supporting cross-border communication and
teamwork.
Phases
Scope
Connect Planning Support (operation)
Strategic
level
Finding potential partners
Agreement finding about
common goals and
approach
Dialogue building and
general negotiation support
Business models, IP
handling principles
Organizing the cross border
living lab planning and
development process
Partnership structuring,
contracting frameworks
Elaborating a common plan
and approach, defining
responsibilities and roles
Governance models
structuring living labs
operation and collaboration
in the network
Defining the processes and
tools for project
management and
coordination
Operational
level
Collaboration procedures,
processes and tools for
connect phase
E.g. Internet-based tools for
communication and
exchange
Detailed planning
processes and procedures
Tools for collaborating in
the planning phase, e.g.
using shared workspaces
Processes and tools for
living labs collaboration
during support phase, e.g.
web conferencing tools and
shared workspace
Table 1 Strategic and operational collaboration issues addressed during the network lifetime
3 Collaboration in Cross-Border Living Labs
3.1 Homecare and Independent Living: Transfer of a Technology Solution
The homecare and independent living pilot addresses the transfer of technological solutions in
the domain of homecare from one country to another. Three experiments are carried out within
this pilot: 1. transferring a videophony solution developed by an SME from Belgium to Finland,
2. transfer of a sensor network solution from Netherlands to Spain [Lievens et al. 2011], and 3.
transferring a social emergency call service from the Netherlands to Belgium. The main
challenge is to establish a local “ecosystem” in which all necessary conditions in the “receiving”
country are present, enabling the absorption of the technology, creating required legal, regulatory
and organisational conditions including roles and responsibilities of the organisations involved.
As the health sector is strongly determined by locally specific value chains and regulations, it is
important to thoroughly investigate and understand the required ecosystem and approach for
successful replication or adaptation. Facilitating this transfer process, the Living Labs both at the
home and remote locations played a critical role. Not only these living labs acted as a “central
hub” for the SMEs connecting them with appropriate partners, they also performed most of the
set-up and execution activities of the cross-border project. However, establishing cross-border
collaboration in this pilot encountered the following main issues:
•A cross-border collaboration Living Lab pilot in the domain of health is not just
collaboration between partners. Such collaboration must be embedded in the existing
ecosystem, bringing in stakeholders that already occupy a key-role in the market.
•The objective of the Living Lab pilot is not the experiment in itself. It must be driven by
a clear market objective and goal by every stakeholder. This requires the creation of a
shared vision and expectation of all the involved partners based on their needs, interests
and motives. However, in the healthcare domain the visions of the societal and
economical stakeholders are often diverging. The challenge is to translate all this in the
project set-up and to safeguard the expected added value for each partner involved.
•Creating the required eco-system and effectively facilitating technology transfer also
challenges the role of the Living Lab as a central hub. Living Labs are being confronted
with new roles, and the new set of activities to be performed often goes beyond the initial
objectives, activities and competencies of the Living Labs.
During the set-up and deployment of the three experiments, a number of important issues must
be taken into account. It is necessary to start with a clear objective and identified added value for
all participants that participate. Moreover, these goals and needs should be aligned with and
framed within the daily operations or a specific roadmap of the SMEs and additional partners. If
not, the motivation and willingness to collaborate and to adjust during the pilot will be limited.
Subsequently this willingness must also be reflected in identified business opportunities after
completion of the project resulting in a continuation, based on the results and within a normal
commercial market environment of the eco-system as set-up in the pilot.
To conclude, the homecare and independent living pilot is structured as a set of project-like
experiments in which a technology solution is transferred from one country to another. The pilot
collaboration needs are largely determined by the need to set up a local ecosystem (preferably
similar as the initial market or region, but adjusted to the local context), engaging local
stakeholders that fit within that ecosystem, and the adaptation of the solution to the local context.
For this no ready to use methodologies exist apart from usual approaches such as requirements
definition and normal standards of project management and stakeholder involvement. These
however, often lack elements that focus on (1) the contextualisation, (2) the domain where a pilot
is performed, and (3) the specific ecosystem in which it has to be deployed. During the
APOLLON project we therefore created various methods, such as requirement and value
analysis, which aim to capture the specifics of such cross-border collaboration of living labs.
3.2 Energy Efficiency: Sharing Knowledge, Experiences and Data
The energy efficiency pilot comprised four energy efficiency living labs experiments based on
smart meters in four different countries: Sweden, Finland, Netherlands and Portugal. While
original focus of the pilot was in creating a benchmark framework which would enable each of
the smart metering experiments to benefit from local experiments, actual focus of this pilot and
its experiments was mostly on data, knowledge and results sharing. Additionally focus was on
collaboration among SMEs and the benefits for SMEs to participate in a cross border living lab
network in order to expand business. The pilot set out to test, to evaluate and to validate the
process of extending the market for SMEs operating with products and services in Energy
Efficiency. As the market is fragmented all over Europe, it is highly relevant to develop best
practice solutions and recommendations.
The cross-border collaboration between experiments regarding smart metering experiments did
not function well in this pilot as there was very limited collaboration between the SME’s in
Lisbon, Amsterdam, Helsinki and Luleå. Instead, most collaboration has taken place between the
living labs and their activities. Also, the four living labs had similar goals but very different
technical architectures, and used different user involvement methods. Overall, collaboration has
taken place around a diverse set of topics and issues: administrative issues, development of tools
(project work), documentation, technological equipment, energy consumption behaviour, sharing
of methods, tools and knowledge, and workshops and road shows. Within the pilot, methods
have been developed jointly to support knowledge exchange among partners and methods to
create business opportunities. Overall it was decided to have three different types of
collaboration activities, namely 1. Business matching and partnerships (e.g. road shows); 2.
Technology testing (which required collaboration between many different actors in order to get
the tests operational; the living lab designed the tests and SMEs provided technologies and was
in direct contact with the user community); 3. Knowledge transfer; this has proved to be difficult
to accomplish, but is regarded as vital for success. The challenge is how to expand solutions and
lessons learned within one environment, in relation to environmental issues from another
environment.
The energy efficiency pilot results into forms of cross-border interaction focusing mostly on
dissemination of knowledge and experiences gathered in the experiments. The cross-border
collaboration aspect is rather weak and actually SMEs involved did not have much interest to test
their technologies abroad. One reason for this is the fragmented national European energy
market, which is not supportive of cross-border activities. The pilots were using various methods
such as user behaviour transformation approaches, and the contextualization of such approaches
might constitute a benefit for cross-border collaboration. However the original purpose of
establishing a benchmark framework of use within a cross border setting of comparable
experiments was not realized. Within a setting of more or less independent local experiments on
smart metering, for truly exploiting the opportunities of international collaboration this pilot
needs an agreed project definition and project plan reflecting the different commitments and
business cases involved.
3.3 eParticipation: A Common Service Integration Framework
The eParticipation pilot experimented cross-border living labs collaboration to support the
integration of eMedia technologies and social media services developed or already used in one
country into an application developed in another country. The pilot included different
collaboration experiments covering France, Belgium and the UK, managed as projects using a
living lab approach. One of the successes of the pilot is that several of the SMEs involved
managed to enhance their product and offering and to find new markets in Europe. The pilot
demonstrates also several bottlenecks that hinder cross-border collaboration, such as differences
in goals and expectations as well as differences in business cases. SMEs expected to find
business opportunities, NGOs expected an international validation of their activity and start ups
wanted to get user traction and visibility. Different entrepreneurial cultures also contributed to
creating a bottleneck for collaboration. Harmonization of objectives was a challenge that needed
to be resolved at the beginning of the project. The process of harmonizing goal differences
involved some level of compromise for each partner. A process of scenario co-design helped to
harmonize partners’ objectives and to facilitate the integration of technologies. The co-design
phase took the most of effort in all the experiments, namely from the definition of the scenario to
identification and involvement of the relevant stakeholders. The early involvement of key
stakeholders into the experiment planning is very important.
Also the use of a structured application development framework and project management
methods and tools facilitated collaboration. The role of living labs in the collaboration setting
was found to be of considerable importance in order to prepare and carry out the experiment
successfully. This also requires adequate project management skills and competencies.
Match-making between SMEs and Living Labs was a fundamental step in determining the
success of collaboration between Living Lab and SMEs. When the Living Lab ecosystem is not
adapted to the SMEs demands, opportunities are easily lost. In the same way, when SMEs
solutions are not sufficiently flexible it can be difficult to integrate them. For this reason, agile
approaches for prototyping and testing should be encouraged when working with Living Labs.
Start ups that can easily pivot if they find unforeseen opportunities benefit more from cross-
border pilots than SMEs with a closed solution. On the other hand, the risk of working with a
start up which product is under development is to create delays on the initial schedule.
One of the lessons learned is that the Living Lab should not step back after the SME and local
partners and participants have been introduced and the scenario identified, but work with all the
participants to ensure that the experiment is carried out successfully, also supporting all the
communication between the SME and other participants, to make sure that all involved are
aware of their roles and responsibilities during the experiment. From the perspective of overall
coherence of the pilot and each experiment there is a need for the supervising role of one partner,
having the task of precise project management of all partners and activities with appropriate
(possibly web-based) tools.
From a user experience point of view, using new technologies and media attracted especially
younger population and resulted in overall positive feedback. However this might be an obstacle
for older population and for those who do not have available appropriate equipment for
application and service usage. Living Lab should consider these possible obstacles and ensure
the needed equipment for the all users, participating in the experiment and pilot. Also the need
for training should be considered.
3.4 eManufacturing: Using a Common Technology Platform
Within the eManufacturing pilot, collaboration between Living Labs and with SMEs was
established based on a common platform enabling device integration, developed by the Future
Factory Living Lab of SAP Research Center Dresden located in Germany. This platform aims to
provide support to SMEs in developing and testing new services. Two different cross-border
experiments have been conducted, establishing collaboration with a Living Lab en SMEs from
Portugal, one related to equipment monitoring and another to energy consumption services.
From the start, the eManufacturing pilot was strictly defined and managed as a project, which
highly contributed to the successful collaboration. One observation is that transparency, trust and
easy access to information regardless if the SME is a service provider or service consumer is
crucial to start business relationships. The Living Labs were able to act as a “hub” through which
SMEs became involved in cross-border service innovation [Lopes, Puschke 2011]. This pilot
also demonstrates how a clear and agreed problem definition, timeframes, objectives and
expectations regarding results of the experiments combined with direct and transparent
communication across the cross-border project teams contributes to success.
Homecare and
independent living
Energy efficiency eManufacturing eParticipation
Situational
characteristics
determining
collaboration
Different ecosystems at
sending and receiving
end
Different Smart Meter
experiments in several
countries, interrelation
mostly lacking
Middleware platform
made available
Pilot was organised as
a project; clear use
cases from the
beginning
Integration of
technologies from
elsewhere into
applications for use in
another context
Main collaboration
issues
Resolving technical
and legal issues
Agreeing on project
definition
Living labs acting as
“hub” for SMEs
Benefiting from
experiment outcomes
elsewhere
Creating a common
benchmark for
experiments, using it to
improve technologies
How to support B2B
collaboration on testing
of technologies
How to create a
marketplace for
services
Creating a strong
collaboration between
living labs, and
between living labs and
SMEs, NGOs and start-
ups
Collaboration
bottlenecks
Creating the receiving
ecosystem
Lack of cross-border
collaboration
Difficulty for SMEs to
participate without
financial resources
Technical problems of
integration of
technologies
Role of the living lab to
coordinate the
experiment
Divergence of partner
goals, skills and
expectations
Factors determining
collaboration
bottlenecks
Quality of project plan
and project
management
Quality of project
planning and
management
Business interests of
local partners
Involvement of SMEs
and their interest for
internationalisation
Financial resources of
SMEs
Lacking expertise in
Living Labs
Inflexibility of SMEs
technology solutions
Financial constraints of
SMEs
Collaboration
methods and tools
successfully used
Project planning and
management
Value Analysis
Communication tools
Dissemination and
exchange approaches
e.g. Road shows
Project planning and
management
Communication tools
Low cost web-based
communication tools
Main lessons
learned
Clear business case
(win-win) for all
partners needed
Roadmaps of partners
should be aligned
Importance of value
analysis for mapping
partner objectives
Importance of sound
project management
Need for engagement
of partners involved
Need to clarify the
business case of cross
border collaboration
for all partners
Focus on methods that
can be used in different
contexts e.g.
behavioural change
methods
Importance of a clear
project plan and project
management
Clear expression of
expectations by SME
Agile approaches to
succeed in integrating a
technology into another
application
Matchmaking between
SMEs and Living Labs
is fundamental
Table 2: Cross-pilot analysis of collaboration in living labs networks
4 Conclusions
The four pilot cases presented here demonstrate that in each of the pilot environments the
situational context of living labs collaboration was different. The four pilots should be seen as
cases which we can learn from in making general conclusions for next activities. Table 2
summarizes the main situational characteristics. Based on the analysis of the four pilots we
propose the following recommendations.
Ensure collaboration agreement. One of the characteristics of the APOLLON project is that
before the pilots started the project proposal had to be approved, and this led to the lack of a clear
commitment of SMEs and living labs to agreed results. Actually this means that the connect
phase (and partly also the plan phase) was taken for granted. However during the connect phase
important agreements to be made are e.g. regarding business model, IPR, business proposition,
and contractual agreements.
Define clear roles and responsibilities of living labs and SMEs and other partners. Roles
definition, in particular as it comes to the role of Living Labs, is highly important. In case there is
a transfer situation such as in the Homecare and independent living pilot and in the eParticipation
pilot, the receiving living lab should assume the coordinating role. To ensure that this role can be
fulfilled, the living lab should have the necessary competencies, expertise and skills.
Ensure an agreed common business case before starting. Most of the pilots experienced
difficulties in engaging the partners and ensuring commitment. Objectives, results to be
achieved, time frames, needs and expectations of partners must be clearly defined and aligned to
the project goals before the pilot starts. A win-win for all parties involved should be negotiated
before the actual start. The pilot should be part of the roadmap of SME’s and other parties
involved. Also, the pilot should target clear business opportunities after project’s end.
Ensure adequate project planning and project management. Pilots and experiments within the
pilots are, after all, projects in their own. Sound project definition, project management and the
use of project management tools is a precondition for success. Actually, this has been a problem
in several pilots.
Use adequate collaborative workspaces and communication tools. Most pilots are using a
combination of usual communication tools such as teleconferences, Skype and other tools. Use
of shared workspaces is limited even where it seems that it could have contributed to better
project planning and management.
Make sure that technologies to be tested or used in other contexts are compatible. Several
pilots have been coping with the problem of technologies that have been developed in one
context and not being compatible in another environment. This “localisation” issue deserves
more attention in terms of pilot preparation, technology analysis, testing procedures, and local
situation analysis. Also legal, cultural, social and organisational issues may hinder the adoption
of a technology solution in another context.
Acknowledgement
This work has been partly funded by the European Commission through CIP ICT-PSP Project APOLLON:
Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks which runs 2009-2012 (Grant No. 250516, website:
www.apollon-pilots.eu). The authors acknowledge our gratitude and appreciation to APOLLON project partners for
their contribution during the development of various ideas and concepts presented in this paper. In particular we
appreciate the use of project reports prepared in the pilots covered in this paper.
References
Baskerville R. (1999). Investigating information systems with action research. Communications of the Association
for Information Systems 2 (Article 19). Available at : http://cais.isworld.org.
Camarinha-Matos L.M.; Afsarmanesh H.; Ollus M. (Eds.) (2008) Methods ad Tools for Collaborative Networked
Organisations. Springer.
Lievens B.; Schaffers H.; Turkama P.; Ståhlbröst A.; Ballon P. (2011) Cross-border Living Labs Networks to
Support SMEs Accessing New Markets. eChallenges Conference Proceedings 2011.
Lopes J.; Puschke, C. (2011). D4.4 Pilot results and evaluation of the cross border experiment. APOLLON
deliverable (draft).
March S.T.; Smith G.F. (1996) Design and natural science research on information technology. Decision Support
Systems 15, pp 251-266
Schaffers H.; García Guzmán J.; Navarro M.; Merz C. (Eds) (2010) Living Labs for Rural Development. Results
from the C@R Integrated Project. Tragsa, Madrid.
Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly 35,
1, pp37-56.
