Living%20 Labs E Almirall

956 views

Published on

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
956
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
44
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Living%20 Labs E Almirall

  1. 1. Living Labs Lessons Learned esteve almirall esteve.almirall@esade.edu
  2. 2. “Innovation isn’t what innovators do. It’s what customers adopt” !” Michael Schrage, MIT
  3. 3. 0)
  4. 4. Open Innovation
  5. 5. ? who invented the mountain bike
  6. 6. 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 boards 45% 35 25 15 15 25 35 45% IBM  Global  Benchmarking  Program    |    IBM  2006    |  
  7. 7. Open Innovation
  8. 8. Living Labs as an Open Innovation Intermediary that aims to provide structure and governance to user involvement
  9. 9. Teleictus (2007 – now) implementation of a system for remotely diagnosing and 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.
  10. 10. Espai Zer01,Olot Ca L’Estruch, GEANT2 Sabadell i La Panera, Lleida 2 c a t CitiLab Can Suris, Cornella El Liceu
  11. 11. Opera Oberta (2001 – now) explored the use of High Def Video Conferencing for video broadcasting using Internet 2 infrastructure Pre-Commercial Gap −  Tech. aspects e.g. connection of broadcast equip. to IP netw. −  Availability of High Speed infrastructure. −  IPR of the contents. The Role of Users −  Existence of a “Champion”. −  Users in exhibition theaters and universities “fine-tuned” the experience. The Role of the Living Labs organization −  Creation of an “innovation arena”. −  Selection, Formation & Coordination −  Mediation bt users and the rest of actors.
  12. 12. R & D ?
  13. 13. high level mid level products and services ground level high level know how mid level ground level
  14. 14. 1. Science is global. a) Ideas. b) People. c) Technologies. 2. Diffusion fostered by “publish or perish”. 3.  Much of it is PUBLIC.
  15. 15. 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 equipment 19 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 treatments 13 high level products and services 6 alternative energy companies 1 fuel cells 1 portable electronic devices 1 codecs 4 semiconductor industry 1 bio-technology
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. In a complex, multi-stakeholder environment is not about finding the right answers, is about finding the right questions
  18. 18. 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.
  19. 19. how did ? we get here
  20. 20. Who is going to buy an overpriced ($400 in 2001), low capacity (5GB), cheap plastic look, proprietary, with a 2” monochrome screen, music player with no usb (firewire only) support, no windows support, no replaceable battery that only lasts 10h.?
  21. 21. World’s spending in electronics by country -2007 New York Times – Sept 4, 2008 (data source Euromonitor Intl.)
  22. 22. 2001 2007 2009
  23. 23. 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.
  24. 24. how did ? we get here
  25. 25. demand
  26. 26. Key activities in Systems of Innovation I.  Provision of Knowledge inputs Provision of R&D. Competence building through learning. II.  Demand Side activities Formation of new product markets (public procurement + standards). Open Innovation. User-Driven Innovation. Societal aspects of innovation. III.  Provision of Constituents Entrepreneurship. Support organizations. Networking. Institutions & Incentives (patents, …). Societal aspects. IV.  Support for innovating firms Financing. Admin support. Edquist, 2006 + author Consultancy.
  27. 27. ?
  28. 28. ?
  29. 29. Capturing value from R&D to Innovation a)  Reducing Uncertainty −  At personal level (Champion) – providing a framework. −  Validating users acceptance in real life settings. −  Co-creation of the business model. b) Entrepreneurial Role of Living Labs −  Select, establish and manage the innovation network. −  Entrepreneurship = Selection + Formation + Coordination c) Development of an Initial Demand −  As a result of involving public or private “buyers” and “developers” in the exercise.
  30. 30. users co-create Lead   Users   Open   ParFcipatory   Living   Source   Design   Labs   Open   Design   PlaJorms   Thinking   Usability   closed tesFng   open Human   Applied Factors  &   Ethnography Collaborative Market Ergonomics   Projects places Trad.     Join R&D   Design    Driven   traditional Ventures user centered InnovaFon   user driven participatory collaborative users as passive subjects
  31. 31. users co-create Lego Mindstroms Highly involved User driven knowledge Participatory need for user involvement in Collaborative capturing knowledge from users User centered Google on-line experiments Traditional No involvement information users passive subjects
  32. 32. Closed Open understanding surfacing preferences needs type of knowledge domain based market based knowledge knowledge
  33. 33. Living labs { Validate fit Discover new uses/meaning Codify context specific - preferences Exploration Knowledge Capture {surfacing needs/preferences domain specific
  34. 34. Living labs Exploration Knowledge Capture Fit+ experiment !   Technological   Social (needs, interface, preferences, meaning)   Economic (Business Model, Sustainability)
  35. 35. Competition 101
  36. 36. esteve almirall esteve.almirall@esade.edu

×