• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Mapping Living Labs Esteve Almirall
 

Mapping Living Labs Esteve Almirall

on

  • 597 views

3rd ENoLL Living Lab Summer School

3rd ENoLL Living Lab Summer School

Statistics

Views

Total Views
597
Views on SlideShare
584
Embed Views
13

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

1 Embed 13

http://www.laurea.fi 13

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Mapping Living Labs Esteve Almirall Mapping Living Labs Esteve Almirall Presentation Transcript

    • Living Labs esteve almirall esteve.almirall@esade.edu
    • “Innovation isn’t whatinnovators do. It’swhat customers adopt”!” Michael Schrage, MIT
    • <1>What?
    • Living Labs =co-creation with users early on in the development in real-life environments
    • teleictus
    • Teleictus (2007 – 2009)implementation of a system for remotely diagnosingand treating ictus (brain stroke).Pre-Commercial Gap −  Inexistence of a complete solution. −  Availability of High Speed infrastructure.The Role of Users −  Existence of a “Champion”. −  Co-creation of the service. −  Co-creation of parts of the solution.The Role of the Living Labs organization −  Creation of an “innovation arena”. −  Selection, Formation & Coordination −  Fostering co-creation.
    • <2>Living Labs as Open Innovation Intermediaries
    • Open Innovation
    • ?who invented the mountain bike
    • Sources of New Ideas and Innovation External Internal Business partners Employees (general population) Customers Sales or service units Consultants R&D (internal) Competitors Other Associations, trade groups, Think tanks conference boards Internet, blogs, Academia bulletin boards45% 35 25 15 15 25 35 45% IBM  Global  Benchmarking  Program    |    IBM  2006    |  
    • Open Innovation
    • Living Labs as anOpen Innovation Intermediarythat aims to provide structure andgovernance to user involvement
    • <3>Why users ?
    • R & D ?
    • high level mid level products and services ground level high levelknow how mid level ground level
    • 1. Science is global. a) Ideas. b) People. c) Technologies.2. Diffusion fostered by “publish or perish”.3.  Much of it is PUBLIC.
    • Kleiner Perkins Portfolio (81 companies)49 (60%) develop mid-level goods and services for use by other business. 23 developing enterprise software 6 instruments used in hospitals 20 IT equipment19 Ground level consumer goods and services 3 network / community companies 2 e-commerce 2 providers of information (mobile) 1 distributor of movies over the Internet 1 photoneumatic therapy 1 financial services 1 restaurant guide (Zagat) 4 developing treatments13 high level products and services 6 alternative energy companies 1 fuel cells 1 portable electronic devices 1 codecs 4 semiconductor industry 1 bio-technology
    • User Contributions 1.  Living Labs observe user-lead practice in diffuse social contexts. 2.  Living Labs identify and codify tacit and practice based knowledge. 3.  Living Labs diffuse tacit and practice based knowledge into ad-hoc innovation networks. 4.  Living Labs operate at mid-low level innovation strata.
    • <4>Why real-life environments ?
    • In a complex, multi-stakeholder environment is not about finding the right answers, is about finding the right questions
    • Product evolution or Interpretation of meaning 1.  Living Labs perform context-based experimentation in order to generate local modifications within existing socially negotiated meanings. 2.  Living Labs perform context-based experimentation in order to generate new socially negotiated meanings for products and services.
    • <5> Innovation as a societal process where adoption plays an important role
    • how did ?we gethere
    • Who is going to buy an overpriced($400 in 2001), low capacity (5GB),cheap plastic look, proprietary,with a 2” monochrome screen, musicplayer with no usb (firewire only)support, no windows support, noreplaceable battery that onlylasts 10h.?
    • World’s spending in electronics by country -2007 New York Times – Sept 4, 2008 (data source Euromonitor Intl.)
    • 2001 2007 2009
    • 1)  Sophisticated users.2)  Eager to try new & pretty imperfect things.3)  Adopt them & integrate them in their daily lives.4)  Changing lifestyles and providing meanings.
    • <6>Mapping Living Labs
    • Lead UsersHuman FactorsErgonomicsUsability TestingOpen SourceParticipatory DesignDesign Driven InnovationDesign ThinkingApplied EthnographyLiving Labs
    • users as co-creatorslab like real lifesettings environments users as subjects of study
    • users as co-creators lab like real life settings environmentsuser drivenparticipatorydesign drivenuser centered users as subjects of study
    • users co-create Lego Mindstroms Highly involvedUser driven knowledgeParticipatory need for user involvement inCollaborative capturing knowledge from usersUser centered Google on-line experimentsTraditional No involvement information users passive subjects
    • Lab-like settings Real life environments understanding surfacing preferences needs and tacit knowledge type of knowledge
    • Living labs { Validate fit Discover new uses/meaning Codify – context specific - preferences Exploration Knowledge Capture { surfacing needs/preferences domain specific Tacit knowledge
    • Living labs Exploration Knowledge Capture Fit+ experiment ! ü  Technological ü  Social (needs, interface, preferences, meaning) ü  Economic (Business Model, Sustainability)
    • esteve  almirall  esteve.almirall@esade.edu