ArticlePDF Available

Living Lab Research Landscape: From User Centred Design and User Experience towards User Cocreation

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

New paradigms, such as Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) and Web 2.0 (O'Reilly, 2004) as well as Living Labs operating as a User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem (Pallot, 2009), promote a more proactive role of users in the R&D process. However, a number of existing methods for involving users are abundantly described in the literature, such as Lead User (Von Hippel, 2005), User Driven Innovation (Von Hippel, 1986), User Centred Design (Von Hippel, 2005) and User Created Content (O'Reilly, 1998) as well as User Co-Creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2000). This paper explores the domain landscape of Living Lab research, based on the landscape of human-centred design research (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Sanders, 2008) and later introduced in the domain of Living Lab research (Mulder & Stappers, 2009). It also discusses the links with existing theories such as Social Capital Theory (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) and Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) as well as Socio-Emotional Intelligence Theory (Goleman, 1998). It also explores the creation of User Group Experience concept for bringing the socio-emotional perspective (Norman, 1995; 1998; 2004; 207; Goleman, 1998) into User Experience (Fleming, 1998) that appears too much focusing on individual users and usability.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Living Lab Research Landscape: From User
Centred Design and User Experience towards
User Cocreation
Marc Pallot
1
, Brigitte Trousse
2
, Bernard Senach
2
, Dominique Scapin
3
1
ESoCE-NET, CCE at NUBS & INRIA Sophia Antipolis – Méditerranée, AxIS Team, France
2
ICT Usage Lab & INRIA Sophia Antipolis – Méditerranée, AxIS Team, France
3
ICT Usage Lab & INRIA Paris – Rocquencourt, AxIS Team, France
Abstract
New paradigms, such as Open Innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) and Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2004) as well as Living Labs
operating as a User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem (Pallot, 2009), promote a more proactive role of users in the
R&D process. However, a number of existing methods for involving users are abundantly described in the literature,
such as Lead User (Von Hippel, 2005), User Driven Innovation (Von Hippel, 1986), User Centred Design (Von
Hippel, 2005) and User Created Content (O’Reilly, 1998) as well as User Co-Creation (Prahalad & Ramaswamy,
2000). This paper explores the domain landscape of Living Lab research, based on the landscape of human-centred
design research (Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Sanders, 2008) and later introduced in the domain of Living Lab research
(Mulder & Stappers, 2009). It also discusses the links with existing theories such as Social Capital Theory (Nahapiet
and Ghoshal, 1998) and Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) as well as Socio-Emotional Intelligence Theory
(Goleman, 1998). It also explores the creation of User Group Experience concept for bringing the socio-emotional
perspective (Norman, 1995; 1998; 2004; 207; Goleman, 1998) into User Experience (Fleming, 1998) that appears
too much focusing on individual users and usability.
Keywords
Open Innovation, User Centred Design (UCD), User Driven Innovation (UDI), Web 2.0 and User Content Creation
(web 2.0 UCC), User Experience (UX), User Group Experience (UGX), User Cocreation (UC), Domain Landscape.
1 Introduction
Today, 212 Living Labs are members of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). They
are geographically located within the enlarged European Union and in other regions such as
South Africa, Asia and South America. All of them have the goal to involve users at the earlier
stage of the R&D process not only as observed subjects but rather as a participative force for co-
creating value. A living Lab is an open research and innovation ecosystem involving user
communities (application pull), solution developers (technology push), research labs, local
authorities and policy makers as well as investors.
While the Living Lab ecosystem, through openness, multicultural and multidisciplinary aspects,
conveys the necessary level of diversity, it enables the emergence of breakthrough ideas,
concepts and scenarios leading to adoptable innovative solutions. A Living Lab Empowers user
communities like it is done with Web 2.0 (Frappaolo & Keldsen, 2008; O’Reilly & Battelle,
2009) applications such as YouTube, Flickr, Delicious, or Twitter where users are creating
content and value. There are even examples of stigmergic or mass collaboration where citizens
are collectively creating content (e.g. Wikipedia) for the benefit of the society at large.
A Living Lab is an Open Innovation ecosystem frequently operating in the context of
competitiveness clusters and public development agencies within social innovation environments
engaging local authorities in territories such as cities, agglomerations, regions. A Living Lab can
operate with a research and innovation platform for providing access to science and innovation
services allowing enterprises and users/citizens either as entrepreneurs or communities. The main
objectives consist to explore new ideas and concepts, experiment new artefacts and evaluate
breakthrough scenario that could be turned into successful innovations. There are different
application examples such as eHealth, Ambient Assisted Living, eInclusion, eTransportation,
eGovernment, Smart City, ICT for Energy, and ICT for Environment.
The Social dynamics of the Living Lab approach ensures a wide and rapid spread (viral adoption
phenomenon) of innovative solutions through the socio-emotional intelligence mechanism
(Goleman, 1998). A Living Lab environment needs to have one or several specific technology
platforms (eHealth, eParticipation, eInclusion and so on), science & innovation services and
user/citizen communities enabling the exploration of innovative scenarios including new
concepts turned into technological artefacts. The experimentation and evaluation of the resulting
scenarios and technological artefacts are driven by users within a real life context through a
socio-economic (societal, environmental, health and energy cost/value), socio-ergonomic (user
friendliness) and socio-cognitive (intuitive level) as well as adoptability perspectives (potential
level of viral adoption).
Living Labs are standing at the crossroads of different society trends like citizens engaged into a
more participative approach, businesses and local authorities as well as user communities are
gathering within public-private–people partnership initiatives. They are also at the crossroads of
different paradigms and technological streams such as Future Internet, Open Innovation, User
co-Creation, User Content Creation and Social Interaction (Web2.0), Mass Collaboration (i.e.
Wikipedia), and Cloud Computing where the Internet is the cloud, also named “the disappearing
IT infrastructure”.
However, there are still open questions such as articulating the various relevant research areas,
methods and tools within the Living Lab research domain and identifying appropriate concepts
for supporting user cocreation.
2 The Domain Landscape of Living Lab
2.1 The Living Lab Approach
As demonstrated by the Web 2.0 in empowering users, new R&D approaches are emerging
where users are not considered anymore as being the observed subjects in functional tests but
rather as being able to contribute and create value. William Mitchell
4
argued that a Living Lab
represents a user-centric research methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining
complex solutions in multiple and evolving real life contexts. He identified several impact and
benefits. The first noticeable impact is the integration of the users into the development process
for ensuring highly reliable market evaluation. The second one is the reduction of technology
and business risks. The third one is that a Living Lab is beneficial to SME, micro-organizations
and start-ups, since they can share resources without so much venture capital. Finally, the fourth
one is that large companies have access to a broader base of ideas.
2.2 Existing Related Domain Landscapes
2.2.1 Domain landscape of Test and Experimentation Platforms
Ballon and colleagues (2005) found that Test and Experimentation Platforms (TEPs)
constitute a
new and relatively uncharted territory. Therefore, they launched an extensive exploratory research on
TEPs theoretical literature and empirical data.
They identified six types of TEPs, namely
4
MediaLab and School of Architecture and city planning at MIT
prototyping platforms (including usability labs, software development environments), testbeds,
field trials, living labs, market pilots, and societal pilots.
Interestingly, they gave the following definition to Living Lab,An experimentation environment
in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and in which (end) users are considered
‘co-producers’.”
They elaborated a domain landscape of TEPs with three different dimensions (see Figure 2.2.1).
The first dimension consists in the technological readiness that scales from low (immature
technologies) to high maturity (mature technologies or applications that are almost market
ready). The second one addresses the focus and balances in between testing and design.
However, one can assume that this dimension is about evaluation. Finally, the third one consists
in making a differentiation in between the degree of openness, ranging from in-house activities to
open platforms.
Figure 2.2.1 – Conceptual Framework of Test and Experimentation Platforms (Ballon et al, 2005)
The different areas appearing like bubbles in the landscape correspond to the six identified TEPs.
They are positioned in the landscape according to the two dimensions of focus and technology
maturity they are intended to deal with
2.2.2 Domain landscape of Human-Centred Design Research
Sanders and Stappers (2008) started to draft a domain landscape of design research (see Figure
2.2.2) for developing a paper on the state of design research. She found that the design research
map is described by two intersecting dimensions, namely: the design research approach and the
mind-set. She explained that the dimension on approaches is split into research-led on the bottom
side and design-led on the top side. The dimension on mind-set is split into expert mind-set on
the left hand side, where users are considered as subjects, and participatory mind-set on the right
hand side, where users become value co-creators. Sanders identified the shift of the mind-set
dimension as a significant cultural change.
The largest areas in the map represent the most populated ones, such as User-Centred Design and
Participatory Design. She explains that the UCD area includes social and behavioural sciences as
well as human factors and ergonomics. Two smaller bubbles inhabit the UCD territory, namely
contextual inquiry and lead-user innovation. On the right hand side, the Participatory design
territory is inhabited by physical artefacts as thinking tools throughout the process, common
among the methods issued by the Scandinavian research norms. The design and emotion bubble
appeared in 1999, said Sanders, as a combination of research-led and design-led approaches to
design research. Critical design where designers are the experts (instead of the researchers)
appeared as an opposite force of UCD. It focuses on cultural probes rather than usability and
utility. Finally, the generative design bubble appeared to empower people to create and promote
alternatives to current situations. Generative tools instil a shared design language used by
designers, researchers and stakeholders (users) for communicating visually. This technique suits
particularly the Front-End of Innovation in order to feed the process with people ideas, dreams
and insights.
Figure 2.2.2 – Domain Landscape of Human-Centred Design Research (Sanders & Stappers, 2008)
Later, Mulder and Stappers (2009) argued that Northern Europeans led the participatory
approach (see Figure 2.2.2) combined with explorative actions using tools and techniques from
design, such as making collages, diagrams, models, and other visualizations as a means to
support self observation and reflection. She notes that these “Research techniques have not only
evaluative power (prove/disprove a hypothesis or idea), but also generative value (provide
insights not yet known to the researchers).”
Mulder also states that the notions of co-creation and co-design have been growing within the
participatory design landscape. She proposes to involve active users by making use of generative
techniques in order to practice more the concept of engaging users as co-creation contributors as
re-enforcing the living side of the Living Lab environment. Finally, she argues that “Cocreation
in open innovation requires an open mindset towards sharing and collaboration. This is not
trivial. Although board members preach open innovation in pre-competitive collaboration,
companies seem not eager to share with competitors. Even within companies, employees are not
always keen in sharing ideas.
2.3 Towards a Domain Landscape of Living Lab Research
As we were working on the development of a paper about the research area of User Experience
and discussing about the scientific program of the first Living Lab Summer School and more
specifically about the Living Lab domain mapping and landscaping sessions, it came to our mind
that it could be useful to prepare a map as a tentative landscape of Living Lab research.
The starting point was a previous article on Living Lab research that was published in the
ECOSPACE Newsletter (Pallot et al, 2008). Several possible dimensions were identified and
finally two main dimensions, namely the interaction mode and research type allowed designing
four quadrants (see Figure 2.3-a). The main idea behind the design of this map is to show, like in
the Sander’s map, a progress from functional tests and usability analysis toward User co-
Creation. However, the selection of these two dimensions is self-explained by the evolution of
the role of users.
The first dimension called “Interaction Mode” illustrates the way interaction with users is
perceived. This dimension scales from Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), which addresses
individual users, to Interpersonal Interaction that embeds social interaction within a group of
people, especially the large ones like online communities. The second dimension “research type”
splits the domain landscape into Observation Research where a user is considered as a subject
and Participative Research where users actively contribute in co-creating value. This dimension
resemble to the dimension on mind-set of Sander’s map.
Figure 2.3-a – Dimensions and Four Quadrants of the Living Lab Research Map
There are two complementary dimensions that could be useful in order to better characterise the
current R&D and innovation trends and evolution (see Figure 2.3-b). As a way to show the
complementary to the main dimensions, they appear as diagonals. The first diagonal (BL, TR)
illustrates the evolution current trend in terms of evaluation focus starting with reliability, as a
first stage, where a functional test is applied in order to check if a feature works properly but
without necessarily considering whether this feature could really be useful to the users. The
second stage consists to carry on usability analysis for the obvious motivation of evaluating the
user friendliness (degree of intiutivity) and ergonomic design. While the third stage
“adaptability” brings the evaluation of personalisation capacities (degree of look and feel
recomposing), the fourth one “adoptability allows users to create new features (composing their
own services).
The second diagonal (BR, TL) shows the recent evolution of collaboration style induced by
network technologies such as the Internet and the Web. This dimension scales from structure
collaboration with for example Symbiotic collaboration style (physical collocation) up to
unstructured collaboration (Dorigo & Stützle, 2004; Elliott, 2006) with for example Mass
collaboration style (virtual or online collocation).
These two diagonal complementary dimensions are also important for positioning the different
research areas in the landscape of the Living Lab research map. However, one could argue that
another potential dimension could represents the current trend induced by a specific focus on
societal issues (eCare, eInclusion, eHealth, eTransportation, eGovernment, Smart City, ICT for
Energy, and ICT for Environment) as an R&D shift from technological innovations towards
more socially based innovations.
Technological innovation is included in the figure as corresponding to the HCI of the interaction
dimension. Social innovation is also included in the figure as corresponding to the Interpersonal
Interaction. While in the first case the focus is on developing a product (hardware), in the second
case the priority is much more on developing specific services for people.
Figure 2.3-b – Diagonal Dimensions of the Living Lab Research Map
The next step consists to populate this map with the existing research areas in order to design the
landscape of the Living Lab Research Map. A number of research areas already exist for
involving users in the R&D and innovation processes, such as Web 2.0 User Created Content
(Web 2.0 UCC) (Garrett, 2002), User Centred Design (UCD), User Experience (UX) (ISTAG
EAR report, 2004; Aarts & Marzano, 2003; de Ruyter, van Loenen & Teeven, 2007), User
Cocreation (UC), User Centric-Innovation (UCI) and Driven-Innovation (UDI). Like in Sander’s
landscape of design research, it makes sense to include participatory design.
The largest areas in the map represent the most populated ones like in Sander’s landscape on
design research. User-Centred Design (UCD) and Participatory Design (Schuler & Namioka,
1997) as well as Web 2.0 User Content Creation (UCC) represent the largest areas that are
confirmed by the number of published scientific papers. In contrast with Sander’s Landscape,
besides the fact that it also includes usability analysis as well as human factors and ergonomics,
the UCD area overlaps with User Experience (UX). The concept of UX was widely disseminated
by Norman (1995) and became a research area by its own. Two smaller bubbles inhabit the UCD
territory, namely contextual inquiry and lead-user innovation.
On the right hand side, the Participatory design territory is inhabited by various artefacts
intended to engage users in the group cognition leading to the emergence of new ideas, scenarios
and concepts. Several smaller bubbles are overlapping the participative design territory; among
them appear the Empathic Design (ED), User Cocreation (UC) (Interact, 2009), User Driven
Innovation (UDI) or User-Centric Innovation (Bilgram, Brem & Voigt, 2008) and Socio-
Emotional Intelligence (SEI). Those bubbles are linking UCD with Participative Design. Action
Research (AR) could be included as a bubble also linking UCD and PD. Even Participatory
Action Research (PAR) has emerged in recent years as a significant methodology for
intervention, development and change within communities and groups. The SEI bubble appeared
in 1998 as a combination of views issued from Goleman books on Social Intelligence and later
on Emotional Intelligence.
In contrast with Sander’s Landscape for a second time, this is the Web 2.0 UCC, where
developers and users are the experts (instead of the researchers), appeared as an opposite force of
UCD. It focuses on User Content Creation, Crowd Sourcing and Social Networking as a kind of
cultural probes (Gaver, 1999; 2004) rather than focusing on usability analysis.
Finally, the User Group Experience (UGX) bubble appears to have a group of users experience
instead of individual user experience (UX) (Fleming, 1998) in order to let a community share
experiences that lead to new insights, ideas and breakthrough scenarios. Contextual Design
(Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998) is currently still to be included in the Participatory Design territory.
Figure 2.3-c – Domain Landscape of the Living Lab Research Map
We do believe that the concept of UGX brings the socio-emotional perspective into user
experience. This would constitute a major step forward in the direction of experiential service
platform with a strong connection to Empathic Design and Socio-Emotional Intelligence. This
would allow researchers, developers and users to move more concretely towards User
Cocreation. This new research area suits particularly the Front-End of Innovation in order to feed
the R&D process with group and empathical insights unleashing the power of people ideas.
A table of concepts and definitions (see Table 2.3) provides useful information for
disambiguating the used terminology. This table will be completed and extended.
Concepts Descriptions Key Notions
Living Lab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_lab User-centred Innovation
ecosystem
UX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_experience
UCD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-centered_design
UCC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0
UGX
UDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_innovation
Open
Innovation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_innovation Lead-user
ED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathic_design
AR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_research
PAR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_action_research
PD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_design
Social
Cognition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_cognition
SEI http://www.eiconsortium.org/about_us.htm
SI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_intelligence
EI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
UC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-creation
Table 2.3 – Concepts Belonging to the Domain Landscape of the Living Lab Research Map
3 Conclusions and Future Work
The lack of domain landscape on Living Lab research appears to be an important issue for
researchers in the movement towards user cocreation. It would help to reach a broader
understanding of the Living Lab concept. Exploring the domain landscape of Living Lab
research was an exciting task as well as drafting the map with area bubbles inhabiting the various
territories. During this work, UGX emerged as a necessary area bubble linking the traditional
UX, which focuses very much on usability analysis, and UC in order to bring the social
elements. This work was performed as a diversion in the UX study we are currently carrying on.
Developing a domain landscape like this one is an important task but considerable amount of
work. We hope that this first exercise and issued draft will motivate enough other researchers for
contributing to its future development. Furthermore, the current figure of the domain landscape
of Living Lab research we have developed, could be re-used for describing complementary
layers for related techniques, methods and tools as well as examples based on previous studies
that could be positioned in the landscape and illustrate the different areas. Another layer could be
described for locating the already published papers on Living Lab and related research areas.
References
Aarts, E. H. L.; Marzano S. (2003). The New Everyday: Views on Ambient Intelligence. 010 Publishers. p. 46.
ISBN 9789064505027.
Ballon, P., Delaere, S., Pierson, J., Poel, M., Slot, M., Bierhof, J. & M. Diocaretz (2005). Test and Experimentation
Platforms for Broadband Innovation: Conceptualizing and Benchmarking. International Best Practice.
IBBT/VUB-SMIT Report.
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN: 1-55860-411-1
Bilgram, V.; Brem, A.; Voigt, K.-I. (2008). User-Centric Innovations in New Product Development; Systematic
Identification of Lead User Harnessing Interactive and Collaborative Online-Tools, in: International Journal of
Innovation Management, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 419-458.
Carl Frappaolo and Dan Keldsen (2008). "What is Web 2.0?". Association for Information and Image Management.
http://www.aiim.org/What-is-Web-2.0.aspx. Retrieved 2009-01-20. "AIIM defines Enterprise 2.0 as a system of
web-based technologies that provide rapid and agile collaboration, information sharing, emergence and
integration capabilities in the extended enterprise."
Chesbrough Henry, Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology,
Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
de Ruyter, B., van Loenen E. & Teeven, V. (2007). User Centered Research in ExperienceLab, European
Conference, AmI 2007, Darmstadt, Germany, November 7-10, 2007. LNCS Volume 4794/2007, Springer.
Elliott, M. (2006). "Stigmergic Collaboration: The Evolution of Group Work." M/C Journal 9.2. 21 Mar. 2009
<http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0605/03-elliott.php>.
Dorigo M. and Stützle T. (2004), Ant Colony Optimization, MIT Press, 2004. ISBN 0-262-04219-3
Fleming, J. 1998, Web Navigation: Designing the User Experience. O’Reilly & Associates, Inc, USA.
Garrett, J. 2002, Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web. New Riders Press, USA.
Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes, interactions, 6 (1). 21-29
Gaver, W.W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S. and Walker, B. (2004). Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty.
Goleman. D. (2006). Social intelligence: the new science of human relationships. Publisher: Bantam Books.
Publication Date: September 2006. ISBN-13: 9780553803525
Interact 2009 Workshop report “Towards a Manifesto of Living Lab Co-Creation”
ISO 13407:(1999), titled Human-centred design processes for interactive systems, is an ISO Standard providing
Guidance on human-centred design activities throughout the life cycle of interactive computer-based systems.
ISO FDIS 9241-210:2009. Ergonomics of human system interaction - Part 210: Human-centred design for
interactive systems (formerly known as 13407). International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Switzerland.
ISO 9241-11:1998, Ergonomics of Human System Interaction: Guidance on usability
ISTAG Report on Experience Application Research (EAR) (2004). “Involving Users in the Development of
Ambient Intelligence”. European Commission – IST 2004 – on http://www.cordis.lu/ist/istag.htm
Mulder, I. & Stappers, P.J. (2009). Co-Creating in Practice: Results and Challenges, Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, ICE'2010 "Collaborative Innovation: Emerging
Technologies, Environments and communities", Leiden, The Netherlands, June 2009
Norman, D., Miller, J., Henderson, A. (1995). What You See, Some of What's in the Future, And How We Go
About Doing It. HI at Apple Computer. Proceedings of CHI 1995, Denver, Colorado, USA
Norman , D. (1998). The Invisible Computer, Why Good Products Can Fail, the Personal Computer Is So Complex,
and Information Appliances Are the Solution, Cambridge MA, MIT Press
Norman , D. (2004). Emotional Design. : why we love (or hate) everyday things, NY : Basic Books.
Norman , D. (2007). The Design of Future Things, Basic Books
O’Reilly T., Battelle J., 2009, “Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On”, Special Report, Web 2.0 Summit, Co-
Produced by O’REILLY & Techweb
Pallot, M, B. Trousse, B. Senach, S. Richir, B. de Ruyter, W. Prinz, O. Rerolle, B. Katzy (2008), Living Lab
Research, ECOSPACE Newsletter Special Issue on Living Labs, Published by the ECOSPACE Consortium
Pallot, M. (2009). The Living Lab Approach: A User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem. Webergence Blog
(http://www.cwe-projects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/715404).
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-Opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review January
2000.
Sanders, E.B.-N (2008). An Evolving Map of Design Practice and Design Research. Interactions, Published by
ACM, “Emerging Approaches to Research and Design Practice”. Volume XV.6, November-December 2008.
Sanders, E.B.-N. & Stappers, P.J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18.
Schuler, Namioka (1997). Participatory Design, Lawrence Erlbaum 1993 and chapter 11 in Helander’s Handbook
of HCI, Elsevier 1997
User Experience (http://www.uxnet.org)
Von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32, 791–805
Von Hippel, Eric A., (2005) "Democratizing Innovation", MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
Watson-Manheim, Chudoba and Crowston (2002), "Discontinuities and Continuities: A new way to understand
virtual work", Information, Technology and People, 15(3), 191-209
... • Le premier avantage est la faculté à faire émerger et prendre en compte les usages actuels et réels liés à un produit ou un service, et cela tout au long du processus d'innovation, permettant ainsi de faire évoluer et d'ajuster ce produit ou service tout au long du processus (Pallot et al., 2010). L'usage est une approche sociologique définie comme « un ensemble de pratiques, une façon particulière d'utiliser quelque chose, un ensemble de règles partagées socialement par un groupe de références construites dans le temps » (Pasquier, 2012). ...
... C'est un espace physique ou virtuel, où l'aspect collaboratif est central (Lenne, 2015) et dont la mise en place répond à des besoins de recherche et de résolution de problèmes industriels ou sociétaux en rassemblant des parties prenantes variées pour des pratiques collectives et collaboratives (Lacroix, 2019). L'ancrage réel des Living Labs dans des environnements réalistes permet des retombées scientifiques et sociétales plus importantes que d'autres approches d'innovation (Pallot et al., 2010) (Figure 12). 3. Le Living Lab : Une méthodologie pour piloter les processus de recherche et d'innovation ...
... Ces mêmes auteurs portent plus précisément leur étude sur l'analyse et l'utilisation de méthodes et d'outils issus du concept de « User Experience ». L'UX est décrit comme un concept englobant tous les aspects de l'interaction de l'utilisateur avec un produit : comment il est perçu, appris et utilisé (Pallot et al., 2010). L'expérience utilisateur (UX) mobilise les utilisateurs en concevant avec eux, et pour eux, afin de couvrir tous les aspects de l'expérience d'une personne avec un environnement. ...
Thesis
Les forêts françaises sont au cœur d’enjeux historiques, comme la production de bois et le renouvellement du patrimoine forestier, qui aujourd’hui se croisent avec des défis environnementaux, économiques et sociaux dans un contexte de changement climatique et de transition écologique (par exemple, la préservation des sols, de la biodiversité et des ressources en eau, la bioéconomie circulaire, la conception de forêts résilientes face à des risques inédits et extrêmes etc.). Pour répondre à ces enjeux et défis, les décideurs publics ont formulé de nouvelles stratégies nationales et régionales qui traduisent un ensemble d’attentes envers le secteur forestier. Dans ce contexte, décideurs politiques et acteurs forestiers ont pris conscience qu’il était nécessaire d’innover au sein d’écosystèmes complexes d’acteurs, pour s’adapter à cette situation inédite avec cohérence et organisation. L’ambition de cette thèse est donc de démontrer que les approches living Labs, souvent évoquées mais rarement pratiquées avec rigueur et méthode procurent un cadre méthodologique performant et adapté pour impulser cette innovation collective et faire évoluer les usages des acteurs (en matière de gestion sylvicole mais aussi de travail en réseau et de partage d’information). Nous proposons de construire un cadre de référence méthodologique, selon une posture de recherche-action, basée sur l’approche Living Lab pour piloter l’innovation dans des contextes forestiers caractérisés comme complexes, multi-acteurs et multi-échelles (dans le temps et l’espace), territorialisés. Ce travail propose donc un transfert théorique et méthodologique de l’approche Living Lab vers l’amont du secteur forestier au travers de trois études de cas. Des outils particuliers sont développés ou adaptés, tels des personas pour toucher les petits propriétaires privés, les jeux de territoire pour aborder la spatialisation des ressources ou des questionnements. La discussion montre la pertinence de l’approche pour piloter les processus d’innovation dans un contexte forestier multiacteurs, multifonctionnel et incertain, en faisant émerger des idées inédites pour résoudre des points de blocage.
... Today's living labs are complex innovation and experimentation environments. Studies frequently attempt to differentiate living labs from seemingly similar innovation activities and methodologies in different test and experimentation platforms (Eriksson et al., 2005;Ballon et al., 2005;Mulder & Stappers, 2009;Pallot et al., 2010). ...
... This question outlines a research gap, as no relevant article appears on Google Scholar by combining the terms "Living Labs" and "Blueprint model". Moreover, in their document "Living Lab Research Landscape" Pallot et al. (2010) does not mention the Service Design domain in their matrice. Thus, this gap will be explored in this applied research. ...
... Lead User methods are mentioned in the context of Living Labs when overviews of methods to be used are presented (e.g. Pallot et al., 2010;Kusiak, 2007), but how this should exactly be approached remains unclear. In the works of Almirall et al. (2012), the Lead User concept also pops up with no clear specification on how to implement this, except for 'selection of relevant users' (Almirall et al., 2012). ...
... Rather, it is developed through iterative prototyping in the setting in which the final product is to be implemented. (Almirall, Wareham, 2008;Bergvall-Kareborn, Stahlbrost, 2009;Bergvall-Kåreborn, Ihlström Eriksson, Ståhlbröst, Svensson, 2009;Niitamo, Kulkki, Eriksson, Hribernik, 2006;Pallot, Trousse, Senach, Scapin, 2010;Sauer, 2013;Schaffers, Sallstrom et al., 2011;Schaffers, Komninos et al., 2011). ...
Book
Full-text available
This handbook was created as a product from the SALUTE4CE project where we implemented urban environmental acupuncture. It is intended to guide implementation of UEA as an approach toward increasing green infrastructure in dense cities. A number of project partners contributed their expertise and experience to create this useful book: Editor: Barbara Vojvodíková Authors: Anna Starzewská- Sikorská Barbara Vojvodíková Juliane Mathey Matteo Tabasso Leszek Trząski Justyna Gorgoń Jessica Hemingway Peter Wirth Katarzyna Galej-Ciwiś Elena Masala Iva Tichá Jiří Tylčer Jacek Krzyžak Valentina Curato Jody Marco Abate Christian Bachmann Agata Beryt Jana Kormaniková Jiří Kupka Adéla Brázdová Stefano Fraire Giulia Melis Eduard Vojvodík Umberto Fava
... This user-centred allows the for the unearthing of answers more sustainable answers to complex real-world problems. The living lab approach is based on two key principles, the early involvement of the users in the innovative process, and the conduction of the experiment in a real-world setting, with the goal of integrating the social structure and governance with a high user participation in the innovative process (Liedtke et al., 2012;Pallot et al., 2010). However, the advantage of using the living lab for the PGIS approach is that one has to go through the entire PGIS process, from design to validation, and thus obtains a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of each step and the entire procedure. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study presents the results from an experiment conducted in two peri-urban areas of Northern Ghana on using Participatory GIS (PGIS) to identify the customary and statutory lands tenure and use rights. P-Mapping was used to uncover indigenous knowledge on the changes in land ownership, land use rights and land-use types over a ten-year period. The paper finds that properly trained local people are able to reliably delineate and indicate land rights and land uses in their environment on photomaps with little support of professionals. The results of the experiment show that PGIS can accelerate land adjudication processes on customary lands.
... Les Living Labs peuvent soit pratiquer in vivo, c'est-à-dire mener des activités de test, d'évaluation et de déploiement directement dans les contextes quotidiens des usagers (par exemple un 22 Pour un aperçu des ancrages théoriques de ce type de production, on peut se référer à : Pallot et al., 2010 ;Pallot et al., 2011. 42 En 2003, le concept de « paradoxe européen » a « disparu » des documents institutionnels européens. ...
Thesis
Les Living Labs (laboratoires vivants) sont des organisations qui ont émergé depuis une dix ans et qui se définissent comme des démarches d’innovation ouverte où les usagers occupent une place centrale dans le processus de conception de produits/services. Elles se matérialisent par des lieux articulés autour de plateformes technologiques. Les Living Labs en Santé et Autonomie (LLSA) ambitionnent de trouver des solutions innovantes pour contrer la perte d’autonomie des personnes vieillissantes et les nouvelles problématiques de santé. Cette thèse vise à rendre compte du processus d’institutionnalisation de ces organisations en France à travers une étude multiscalaire. Elle est basée sur une méthodologie ethnographique qui a débouché sur la construction de trois monographies de Living Labs (Autonom’Lab, PROMETEE et le CEN STIMCO) et l’étude longitudinale d’un réseau de Living Labs (le Forum LLSA) pour comprendre les mécanismes d’institutionnalisation. Cette thèse décrit les conditions d’émergence des LLSA via un travail sociohistorique. Sont ensuite passés au crible les différents éléments qui structurent la définition de Living Lab pour établir une connaissance claire de l’objet. L’analyse insiste particulièrement sur l’implication des usagers et le rôle de la technique comme stabilisateurs organisationnels. Enfin, ce travail questionne directement le caractère innovant des Living Labs : de son intention initiale jusqu’à l’institutionnalisation des organisations et leur volonté de « faire institution ».
... Referred to as a Scandinavian approach, participatory design remains influential among different "research through design" paradigms focused on social innovation and formative change -for example, Living Labs, Mass Collaboration, Cloud Computing, and User Co-Creation (Pallot, Trousse, Senach, & Scapin, 2010). In museums, early examples of participatory design include exhibitions produced together with worker-class populations in industrial towns, while more recent collaborations such as those described above explore the design and use of digital platforms in repatriation work with source communities. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
This chapter examines ideas of museums as sites of participatory democracy and design, with a focus on historical and contemporary developments in museum practices in Norway and Sweden. Relationships between research, policy, and practice frame our investigation of the ways in which participatory practices may or may not work in democratic ways. We first consider the meandering developments of democratization practices in crowdsourcing and associational participation in a historical context, before examining how these are furthered in more recent trends of curatorial boundary work with source communities and the principles of participatory design. The following questions are posed: In which ways are museums reformulating and contributing to contemporary notions of democracy, heritage and participation? When participation shifts from idea or value to actual practice, how does the participation of different publics become a force of transformation in museum practices, values, and modus operandi?
Chapter
Due to the rapid changes in the labor market, people need to constantly reshape their competencies, resulting in a tremendous need to reskill the workforce. Vocational training has traditionally been the task of educational institutions; however, today some companies also perform their own training. Overall success in establishing an individual's career depends on successful entry into the workforce, and in case of immigrants, entering the workforce is even more demanding. The key question is how educational institutions and companies can cooperate in this area. Immersive environments like virtual reality offer one type of solution. They are increasingly being used in workforce training and changing landscapes in educational institutions and companies. Using case examples, this chapter illustrates how several companies have jointly developed vocational materials with educational institutions and immigrants. The experiences are discussed, and examples of virtual reality training tasks implemented and connecting them to relevant competencies are presented.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives The concept of living labs as a research method to enhance participation of end-users in the development and implementation process of an innovation, gained increasing attention over the past decade. A living lab can be characterised by five key components: user-centric, cocreation, real-life context, test innovation and open innovation. The purpose of this integrative literature review was to summarise the literature on the relationship between the living lab approach and successful implementation of healthcare innovations. Methods An integrative literature review searching PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cinahl databases between January 2000 and December 2019. Studies were included when a living lab approach was used to implement innovations in healthcare and implementation outcomes were reported. Included studies evaluated at least one of the following implementation outcomes: acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration or sustainability. Quality was assessed based on a tool developed by Hawker et al . Results Of the 1173 retrieved articles, 30 studies were included of which 11 of high quality. Most studies involved a combination of patients/public (N=23) and providers (N=17) as key stakeholders in the living lab approach. Living lab components were mostly applied in the development phase of innovations (N=21). The majority of studies reported on achievement of acceptability (N=22) and feasibility (N=17) in terms of implementation outcomes. A broader spectrum of implementation outcomes was only evaluated in one study. We found that in particular six success factors were mentioned for the added-value of using living lab components for healthcare innovations: leadership, involvement, timing, openness, organisational support and ownership. Conclusions The living lab approach showed to contribute to successful implementation outcomes. This integrative review suggests that using a living lab approach fosters collaboration and participation in the development and implementation of new healthcare innovations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020166895.
Article
International policies have set sustainable development goals that put emphasis on bioeconomy strategies based on renewable resources. The forestry sector, by providing bio-based products, is expected to take part in this bioeconomy with, among other things, the reduction of society's dependence on fossil fuels. Nevertheless, in Europe, the forestry sector is facing an increase in the number of small private forest ownerships, called non-industrial private forests (NIPF), where wood mobilization is difficult due to both ownership fragmentation and the lack of interest of non-industrial forest owners in existing forest-wood chains. Although many policy instruments have been put in place to address this situation, the problem persists for two main reasons. First, a lack of use of policy instruments by forest owners and second, a lack of collaboration between stakeholders. To provide solutions, we propose a methodology to design territorial projects with non-industrial forest owners in the framework of a Living Lab innovation process. This paper presents both the general method developed and analyzed through open and user-centered innovation concepts and its practical implementation in the Vosges department in France. Our results show how the Living Lab approach can improve the acceptance, adoption and use of policy instruments by NIPF owners and how it promotes multi-stakeholder collaborations to design and deploy innovative solutions. The main interest of our study is to provide a methodology to pilot a forestry Living Lab for policy makers and practitioners, based on rigorous concepts of innovation management. Finally, future developments and limitations of our study are discussed in a global research perspective.
Article
Full-text available
Swarm intelligence is a relatively new approach to problem solving that takes inspiration from the social behaviors of insects and of other animals. In particular, ants have inspired a number of methods and techniques among which the most studied and the most successful is the general purpose optimization technique known as ant colony optimization. Ant colony optimization (ACO) takes inspiration from the foraging behavior of some ant species. These ants deposit pheromone on the ground in order to mark some favorable path that should be followed by other members of the colony. Ant colony optimization exploits a similar mechanism for solving optimization problems. From the early nineties, when the first ant colony optimization algorithm was proposed, ACO attracted the attention of increasing numbers of researchers and many successful applications are now available. Moreover, a substantial corpus of theoretical results is becoming available that provides useful guidelines to researchers and practitioners in further applications of ACO. The goal of this article is to introduce ant colony optimization and to survey its most notable applications
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The European Network of Living Labs has been established as one platform for collaborative and co-creative innovation, where users are involved in and contribute to the innovation process. However, what are current practices regarding user-driven open innovation? A review on how existing Living Labs in Europe have implemented the user as co-creator approach across the different stages of product and service innovation showed an emphasis on the Lab part, i.e., a predominant use of traditional methods, but less so on the Living part, i.e., methods of participation and co-creation. In this article, we illustrate how current methods stressing participation and co-creation can be deployed to strengthen current Living lab practices. We conclude with a discussion on the results and challenges to practice cocreation in practice.
Article
Full-text available
Designers have been moving increasingly closer to the future users of what they design and the next new thing in the changing landscape of design research has become co-designing with your users. But co-designing is actually not new at all, having taken distinctly different paths in the US and in Europe. The evolution in design research from a user-centred approach to co-designing is changing the roles of the designer, the researcher and the person formerly known as the ‘user’. The implications of this shift for the education of designers and researchers are enormous. The evolution in design research from a user-centred approach to co-designing is changing the landscape of design practice as well, creating new domains of collective creativity. It is hoped that this evolution will support a transformation toward more sustainable ways of living in the future.
Article
Full-text available
When reason is away, smiles will play. --- Paul Eluard and Benjamin Péret
Article
Major business trends such as deregulation, globalization, technological convergence, and the rapid evolution of the Internet have transformed the roles that companies play in their dealings with other companies. Business practitioners and scholars talk about alliances, networks, and collaboration among companies. But managers and researchers have largely ignored the agent that is most dramatically transforming the industrial system as we know it: the consumer. In a market in which technology enabled consumers can now engage themselves in an active dialogue with manufacturers-a dialogue that customers can control - companies have to recognize that the customer is becoming a partner in creating value. In this article, authors C.K. Prahalad and Venkatram Ramaswamy demonstrate how the shifting role of the consumer affects the notion of it company's core competencies. Where previously, businesses learned to draw on the competencies and resources of their business partners and suppliers to compete effectively, they must now include consumers as part of the extended enterprise, the authors say. Harnessing those customer competencies won't be easy. At a minimum, managers must come to grips with four fundamental realities in co-opting customer competence: they have to engage their customers in an active, explicit, and ongoing dialogue; mobilize communities of customers; manage customer diversity; and engage customers in cocreating personalized experiences. Companies will also need to revise some of the traditional mechanisms of the marketplace - pricing and billing systems, for instance-to account for their customers' new role.
Book
Annotationnewline newline Annotation.newline newline Annotation
Article
Accurate marketing research depends on accurate user judgments regarding their needs. However, for very novel products or in product categories characterized by rapid change—such as “high technology” products—most potential users will not have the real-world experience needed to problem solve and provide accurate data to inquiring market researchers. In this paper I explore the problem and propose a solution: Marketing research analyses which focus on what I term the “lead users” of a product or process. Lead users are users whose present strong needs will become general in a marketplace months or years in the future. Since lead users are familiar with conditions which lie in the future for most others, they can serve as a need-forecasting laboratory for marketing research. Moreover, since lead users often attempt to fill the need they experience, they can provide new product concept and design data as well. In this paper I explore how lead users can be systematically identified, and how lead user perceptions and preferences can be incorporated into industrial and consumer marketing research analyses of emerging needs for new products, processes and services.