VITALISE Summer School 2023_DAY 3 FINAL.pdf

This project has received funding from European
Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
Programme under Grant Agreement No 101007990.
Virtual health and Wellbeing Living Lab Infrastructure
Welcome
Evdokimos Konstantinidis (ENoLL)

Summer School Program
Change the Footer from "Insert"/ "Header and Footer" 2

General Information
VITALISEH2020 project
H2020
Research &
Innovation
Actions
Main Pillar
Excellent
Science
Kick-off
1 April 2021
Duration
36 months
EU funding
€4,999,262
Overall budget
€5,052,387
1
3
2
4
Virtual Health & Wellbeing
Living Lab Infrastructure
▪ Work programme
European research infrastructures
(including e-Infrastructures)
▪ Call
INFRAIA-02-2020: Integrating
Activities for Starting Communities

Consortium
19
ProjectPartners
researchinstitutions,
universities, SMEs,
partners with policy
making capacities &
strong technological
curriculums
11
Countries
Belgium, Greece,
Finland, Spain,
Hungary, Austria, Italy,
Bulgaria, France,
Netherlands, Canada
2
Continents
Partners from 10
European countries &
Canada

Challenges & Impact of VITALISE
5
Higher costs, non-optimal use
of resources, limited
exploitation of research results
4 “Project-oriented” Living
Labs
3 Health &
Wellbeing domain
complications
2 Waste of resources on
identifying and accessing
RIs
1 Need to access key RIs
Efficient access to
research
infrastructures Advanced research
infrastructure
services
Wider sharing of
information,
knowledge &
technologies
Innovation fostered
through partnership
of RIs with industry
A new generation of
researchers ready to
exploit all the tools Contribution to
evidence-based
policy making

Doctor/nurse Family
Psychologist
Ethics Manager
Patient
Wearable
sensor

Everything is about learning from each other
and building (long-term) trust
• Exchange knowledge and experiences in a
fast, efficient,transparent and trustful way
• Increasing the communication and common
understanding
• Co-creating solutions and technologies that
would be of the benefit for both technology
providers and participants/patiens
(stakeholders)
Challenge when engaging citizens and public
If they do not see a real interest from the living
lab manager / technology providers,they are
not transparent when providing feedback.

Health Living Lab’s Services
This project has received funding from
European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research
and Innovation Programme under Grant
Agreement No 101007990.

Harmonisation
70 members
8 members

Joint Research Activities (JRAs)
Explore the
effectiveness of
innovative technologies
and interventions on
rehabilitation
Rehabilitation Transitional Care Everyday Living Environments
Collect data from clinical,
transitional living and
home settings and to
monitor transitions
between settings
Collect ecologically
valid bigdata from
everyday life activities
of people living with
chronic conditions

Capacity Building
Fast track (methodology
tailored to LL
Infrastructures)
Summer schools
Innovation capacity evaluation
Master/University
course – Book for
university course

Transnational Access
Invite external
researchers
1 Ethical approval
of study
2 Preparation &
recruitment
3 Fast track
learning
4 Conduct the
expetiment
5
17 Virtual & Transnational
Access Infrastructures
>€400k Provided to external researchers
for conducting studies
3 Open Calls March 2022,
December 2022 & May 2023

VITALISE H2020 project
Research Infrastructures
UPM-LifeSTech
The Smart House
Living Lab
AUTH
Living environment simulation
Health care transition Living Lab
Centrifuge rehabilitation Living Lab
Laurea
Simulated Hospital
Activity Living Lab
McGill
CRIR
rehabilitation
Living Lab
GAIA
Smart
Spaces
Ocean Living
Lab for
rehabilitation
LiCalab
Experience lab
Gaitlab - Mobilab
Older adults’ homes
INTRAS
MIND lab forAHA
Rehabilitation
Living Lab
VR/AR and
Snoezelenroom
Trebag
Nagykovácsi Wellbeing Living Lab
ΑΙΤ
TechnologyExperience Laboratory 17 Research
Infrastructures
9 Living Labs
7 Countries

Research Infrastructures (WP8-10)

Follow us
VITALISE-PROJECT.EU
@VITALISEproject
@VITALISEproject
VITALISE H2020
Project
VITALISE Project
01 03 04
02

Icebreaker and get to
know each other
Leidy Enriquez (ENoLL)

Icebreaker and get to know each other
Every
participant
possesses a
fragment of an
image
1 Find the other
participants
with the
complementary
fragments.
While searching
Introduce
yourself. Then
go to 1 table
2 Build the image
with all the
fragments
3 Participants
from the team
interact and
asks questions:
Favorite cuisine
Favorite music
Last country
visited
4

Icebreaker and get to know each other
Participants
define a name
for their team
based on their
common likes
and present to
the rest of the
Summer School.
5

Living Labs 101: benefits,
pitfalls, and challenges
Francesca Spagnoli (ENoLL)

Living Labs 101: benefits, pitfalls, and
challenges
What is a Living Lab?
Living Labs are real-life test and experimentation environments that foster co-creation
and open innovation among the main actors of the Quadruple Helix Model.
22
VITALISESummerSchool 2023

And what is not a Living Lab?
❑ A Test Bed is a “Pre-Living Lab” setting enabling rigorous, transparent, and replicable testing of
scientific theories, computational tools and new technologies in a controlled environment (not in real-
life), with users often represented mainly by researchers. Compared to Living Labs, they show a
smaller scaleand level of analysis (e.g. one building compared to a city).
❑ A Fablab: “fabrication laboratory” is a small-scale workshop offering digital fabrication. A fab lab is
typically equipped with an array of flexible computer-controlled tools that cover several different
length scales and various materials, for developing technology-enabled products to mass
production.
❑ A Home Lab (originated at MIT with Prof. Mitchell) they focused on testing and adapting new
technologies based on their fit with the daily home environment.
23

Why using Living Labs?
• Living Labs provide a real-life environment for testing and validating innovations, especially when
addressing wicked problems that are complex, dynamic, and often involve multiple stakeholders
• Living Labs are a powerful tool for co-creating solutions that address complex societal challenges
• Living Labs involve end-users in the innovation process, ensuring solutions are tailored to their needs
• Living Labs enable collaboration between different stakeholders, including researchers, industry partners,
and communities
• Living Labs facilitate rapid iteration and prototyping of solutions, leading to faster innovation cycles
• Living Labs provide valuable insights into the adoption and sustainability of innovations in the long run
• Living Labs help bridge the gap between research and market uptake, leading to more impactful
innovations
By leveraging the strengths of Living Labs, we can create innovative solutions that meet the needs of end-
users while also driving societal impact.
24

When to Use Living Labs?
Living labs are particularly effective for innovation, co-creation, and evaluation in real-world contexts.
They provide valuable insights into how people interact with new ideas, products, and services,
informing further development.
Living labs are well-suited for addressing wicked problems, which are complex and difficult to solve.
They offer a participatory and holistic approach to problem-solving,involving stakeholders and users in
the design and evaluation process.
Living labs can be applied to a wide range of wicked problems, such as climate change, social justice,
health and well-being, and education and learning.
In summary, living labs provide a flexible and adaptable innovation approach that can help create
positive change in society by addressing wicked problems through collaborative and participatory
processes.
25

Quadruple helix
Industry, Academia, Public
Authorities and Citizens are part of
the so-called Quadruple Helix
model (QHM), where users are
placed at the heart of the
innovation ecosystem.
This means that citizens/users
must be considered as actors, not
factors, of the innovation process.
26
▪ VITALISE Summer School 2023

Essential building blocks
27
The Living Lab operates as the
orchestrator within the ecosystemto
connect and partner up with relevant
stakeholders.
Taking a holistic view on society,
involving stakeholders from the
quadruple helix model: government,
academia, private sector and citizens.
A Living Lab involves relevant stakeholders
‘actively’ in all relevant activities, ensuring their
feedback is captured and implemented throughout
the whole lifecycle of the innovation.
In a Living Lab values are bottom-up co-
created not only for but also by all relevant
stakeholders, ensuring a higher adoption at
the end.
A Living Lab operates in the real-life setting of
the end users, infusing innovations into their
real life instead of moving the user to test sites
to explore the innovations.
Each Living Lab activity is problem driven. Therefore,
the methodological approach towards every individual
activity will be selected based on the expected
outcomes of the activity and the stakeholders who
needs to be involved.

Living Labs essentials
28

Roles in Living Labs

3 Layered model
31
© Dr. Dimitri Schuurman, imec – Ugent
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/5931264/file/5931265.pdf

Living Labs pitfalls and challenges
VITALISESummerSchool 2023 32
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1239574/FULLTEXT01.pdf(Habibipour 2018)

Value creation and value chain in a Living Lab
Creating a viable business model that offers value to all different types of new and/or involved
stakeholders is key to the sustainability of a Living Lab. Critical elements to be considered are, for
example, funding sources, value proposition, lean approach, impact, purpose, and key metrics.
In addition, all the phases of a lifecycle approach should be considered: from ideation to design,
experimentation and validation. Important aspects in this part of the evaluation are, among others,
proof of integration of the Living Lab operations into innovation ecosystems, SWOT-analysis of a Living
Lab, a roadmap for the future, and a value chain approach throughout the operations of a Living Lab.
33

34
Discover ENoLL members via
https://enoll.org/network/living-labs/
Access to Living Lab infrastructures and transnational
experimentations

Open innovation process within Living Labs
35
The basic premise of Open Innovation, is to open
up the innovation process to all active players so
that knowledge can circulate more freely and be
transformed into sustainable products and
services for all.
Innovation can no longer be the result of
predefined and isolated activities but the outcome
of a complex co-creation process involving
knowledge flows and absorptive capacities from
all actors involved across the entire economic and
social environment (European Commission, 2016).

Innovation outcomes and long-term multistakeholder partnerships
36
Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. 2013. Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes:
Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(12): 6-15

37
The steps for setting up a Living Lab
Define vision
and mission,
extract the
purpose
SWOT analysis
Stakeholder
mapping into
quadruple helix
Power vs
Interest Matrix
of the
stakeholders
Value
proposition
Stakeholder
Journey canvas
Governance
Model
Customers
identification
Solutions
(products-
services)
identification
Customer
Journey
Business Model
Canvas
Strategic
development
plans

Creating research through
Living Labs
Eva Kehayia (McGill)

Creating research through Living Labs
39
Why
What do I
gain from it
What are
the
challenges
What is the
added value
How do I go
about it

Success in Creating research through
Living Labs -- What does it depend on?
40
The topic
The type of
research
The research
objectives
The research
methodology

Success in Creating research through
Living Labs -- What does it depend on?
41
The Living Lab
The research
setting/context
The services
offered
The
stakeholders
involved
The diverse
partnerships

Health and Well-being
42
Towards optimal rehabilitation and social participation of
persons living with physical disabilities

Towards optimal rehabilitation and social participation
of persons living with physical disabilities
43
▪ In Quebec, 17 % of the people have a disability. In
those 65 years and more the percentage is 42 % and
in Montreal 48 %
▪ Although rehabilitation can address limitations
accompanying stroke, traumatic brain injury or other
acquired neurological conditions there is minimal
return to the community or resumption of daily
ativities.

CENTRE FOR INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN REHABILITATION
(CRIR)
A RehabilitationLiving Lab
(RehabMaLL)
Bonnie Swaine, PhD
Université de Montréal
McGill University &
Eva Kehayia, PhD
www.crir-livinglabvivant.com

IN 2011…
THE REHAB MALL PROJECT BEGAN
Overall goal:
▪ To create an inclusive environment to
optimize participation and inclusion
for individuals of all ages,especially
those with physical disability.
▪ Multipurpose complex (38 000m2), comprising a shopping mall, office towers,
residential tower and a medical centre.
▪ ~1 000 000 visitors/month;33% between 25-44 years, 60% women
▪ Built in 1967 – in need of renovation…

OBJECTIVES
1. Identify the environmental, physical and
social obstacles and facilitators to participation.
2. Develop technology and interventions to
optimize physical and cognitive function, social
participation and inclusion of persons with
disabilities.
3. Implement and evaluate the impact of technology and interventions in-vivo (i.e., in
the Living Lab) on physical and cognitive function, social participation and inclusion of
persons with disabilities.

Elements of success and lessons learned
47
Researchers from various disciplines with complementary areas of expertise worked
together
-- Implicated of diverse stakeholders in the co-creation process
-- Adopted of Participatory Action Research approach
-- Actively engaged partners and identified the ‘added value for all’.
-- Reconciled the rhythms of research, the clinic, and the industrial sector
-- Adopted common ethics procedures and data management practices
-- Adopted an Integrated Knowlede Translation approach
It is important to…
-- Maintain fluid transfer of information, tools, technology and procedures
-- Ensure access to common platforms and data banks
-- Identify harmonization principles across the different projects

WE STUDIEDTHE ACCOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT OFTHE MALL…
(TONY LEROUX)
 We focused on the interior spaces and measured for example,
 Ambient music
 Noise levels, presence of echo…
 Discomfort, difficulty in communication
 Tracked the use of interior spaces
 Leisure
 Circulation
 Food court, communication
 Waiting areas
 Mixed usage

Food Court
61 - 72 dB
Section with low ceiling
64 - 75 dB
Normal conversation
55 dB

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THOSE WITH VISUAL LIMITATIONS
EYE TRACKING ON THE GO
(MURPHY,OVERBURY ETAL)
Tobii Tracker
• Monocular tracking (right
eye)
• Permits free-roaming
• Scene camera captures
participant’s view
Another camera uses the
reflection of the eye on the
glasses to track gaze
position.

TO BETTER PREPARE THOSE IN REHABILITATION TO ENTER AND PARTICIPATE
IN THE COMMUNITY…
RESEARCHERS PARTNERED WITH CLINICIANS AND INDUSTRY (MOTEK)
Recreated the mall
environment in virtual reality
(Sangani,Fung,Archambault,
Lamontagne)

PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCHERS, CLINICIANS AND INDUSTRY
(MOTEK)
Created training modules to retrain
shopping activities in individuals with
stroke or traumatic brain injury
(Weiss,Kizony, Fung)

PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND COMMUNITY-BASED
ASSOCIATIONS (ALTERGO)
Explored the impact of training of
people working in the mall and
interacting with persons with a
disability
(Rochette,Swaine,Kehayia, Roche)
Altergo:Association régionale pour le loisir des personnes handicapées de l'île de Montréal

Creating research through Living Labs
54
Was it
worth it
What did we
gain from it
What were
the
challenges
What was the
added value

Analysis before and after(Poldma et coll)
Key spaces: Access, stairs and elevators, common spaces and signage.
Escaliers Rampe d’accès
© Poldma et Bertin, 2016 55
« You changed my life when you added that ramp » « Ramp is accessible and relatively easy to walk ».
Before After
6 % elderly population entering the mall 23 % elderly population entering the mall

Éclairage
Cage d’escalier sombre
Cage d’escalier
Mobilier
Lignes au sol (perturbe les repères)
Before After

Revêtement au sol
Éclairage
Clarté
Central space
Before After

Organisation du mobilier
Espaces de circulation
Revêtement au sol
Éclairage
Espace de circulation
Foodcourt

Figurede gauche:
exemple de communication graphiquepour les toilettes
Figurede droite:
exemple de corridor et de signalisation

Living Labs innovation
process and services
Teemu Santonen (LAUREA)

61
Santonen, T. (2021)Clarifying terminologyfor
collaborative innovation and development.In Iain
Bitran ; SteffenConn ; Chris Gernreich; Eelko
Huizingh ; Marko Torkkeli & Jialei Yang (Eds.)
ISPIMInnovation Conference:Innovating our
commonfuture, Proceedings ISPIMBerlin 2021.
There is a large body of
knowledge relating
collaborative innovation

Open
innovation 2.0
ecosystem
62
User-
centered
innovation
process
Real life or
simulated
setting
Iterative
co-creation
process
Systematic
multi-method
approach
The European Networkof Living Labs(ENoLL) –
The international federationof benchmarkedLiving Labsin Europe and worldwide
What is a Living lab?
Quadruple helix
Academia
Industry
Public sector
Civil society
Environment Quintuple helix
Multi-
stakeholder
participation

Theoretical foundations of Living lab
innovation process
▪ Living lab approach is a multi-staged innovation process in which the focus
and shape of the solution enrich and clarify the further the process
proceed
– Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Hoist, M. and Stahlbrost, A., 2009, January. Concept design with a living lab approach. In
2009 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
▪ There is no clear consensus what are the stages, and how many stages there
should be
– Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P. and Piirainen, T., 2010. Exploring quadruple helix: Outlining user-oriented
innovation models. Työraportteja, 85/2010, Working Papers, Työelämän tutkimuskeskus, Tampereen yliopisto,
Tampereen yliopistopaino Oy Juvenes Print, Tampere, Finland
63

64
RESEARCH
PROCESS
INNOVATION
PROCESS
LIVING LAB
INNOVATION
PROCESS
AND
SERVICES

Research and Development and Innovation
▪ Research (R) = A systematic and organized investigation aimed at
discovering new knowledge, insights, or understanding about a specific
topic or area
▪ Development (D) = Systematic exploration and development of new or
enhance existing solutions (e.g. products, services, processes, methods
or technologies) by investigating and testing hypotheses, conducting
feasibility studies, and prototyping.
▪ Innovation (I) = Process of creating and implementing new ideas,
methods, products, or processes that result in significant improvements,
advancements, or changes that have practical value and contribute to
societal or economic progress.
▪ Living lab innovation process and services is the glue between RDI
65

VITALISEWP4 KoM 67
How to evaluate
solution
maturity?
Comparison of
technology
readiness level
frameworks

68
What kind of
activities Living
Labs are doing
in different TRL
phases?
Systematic
multi-
method
approach
Iterative
co-creation
process

Laboratory vs. Relevant vs. Operational
• Laboratory Environment: An environment that does not address in any manner the
environment to be encountered by the solution or its subsystem, or component during its
intended operation. It is a facility providing controlled conditions in which scientific or
technological research, experiments, and measurement may be performed. In living lab
context, laboratory can also refer to common “office” facilities such as meeting room or office
desk. Covers TRL steps from 1 to 4.
• Relevant Environment: Relevant environment is the specific subset of the operational
environment that is required to demonstrate critical "at risk" aspects of the final product
performance in an operational environment. Relevant environments include e.g. virtual,
modelling and simulation environments as well as field environments (i.e. real-world settings)
where researchers can simulate physical or social phenomena in controlled way. It is an
environment that focuses specifically on "stressing" the solution advance in question. Covers
TRL steps from 5 to 6.
• Operational Environment: The environment in which the final solution will be operated.
Covers TRL steps from 7 to 9.
69
Real life or
simulated
setting

Prototype strategies
70
Scale:
• ‘High fidelity prototypes’ vs. ‘Low fidelity prototypes’
• ‘Full Size model’ vs. ‘Scaled model’
Integration
• ‘Sub-System’ vs. ‘Entire System’
Logistics
• ‘Informational value of prototype’ vs. ‘Cost of
prototype’
• Time constraints’ vs. ‘No time constraints’
• ‘Cost constraints’ vs. ‘No cost constraints’
• ‘Resource (material) constraints’ vs. ‘No resource
constraints’
• ‘Parallel concepts’ vs. ‘Single concept’
• ‘Iterative approach’ vs. ‘Single model per concept’
Embodiment
• ‘Virtual models’ vs. ‘Physical
models’
• ‘Test (easily available) materials’
vs. ‘Final (manufacturing)
material’
• ‘Outsource work’ vs. ‘Internal
resources’
Evaluation
• ‘Relaxed requirements
• ‘‘Generative nature’ vs. ‘Analytical
nature’
Jensen, L.S., Özkil, A.G. and Mortensen, N.H., 2016. Prototypes in engineering design: Definitions and
strategies. In Ds 84: proceedings of the design 2016 14th international design conference (pp. 821-830).

71
What kind of
activities
Living Labs
are doing in
different TRL
phases?
Systematic
multi-
method
approach
Iterative
co-creation
process

72
Solution maturity
Low
High
Time
Innovation process maturity
Information
Cost of change
Ability
make changes

Living Lab Research Infrastructure
In regulation 1291/2013, the EU Parliament and Council of the EU define Research Infrastructure (RI) as
“facilities, resources and services that are used by the research communities to conduct research and foster
innovation in their fields”. Living lab RIs consist
▪ Single-sited facility: Unified single body of equipment at one physical location
– Laboratory or smart home
▪ Distributed facility: Facilities, resources and services that are geographically scattered in multiple
location
– City, city district, outdoor space (e.g. nature/hiking trails)
– Sensor networks, network of homes
▪ Virtual access-based facility: Resources and services that are exclusively available via online internet
based tools.
– Access and ability storage scientific data and repositories, tools for virtual collaboration, various
computer services,
▪ Mobile facility: Facilities and resources which can be easily moved to from one place to another
– Handheld devices and non-handheld equipment
73
Real life or
simulated
setting

VITALISEWP4 KoM 74
WIKI:
Service descriptions
Systematic
multi-
method
approach
Multi-
stakeholder
participation
User-
centered
innovation
process
Iterative
co-creation
process
Real life or
simulated
setting

Living Lab Support and RDI services
75
SUPPORT SERVICES RDI SERVICES
Accessto data
Stakeholder(and partner) analysis
and mapping
Co-creationsession
Capacity building
Competitorand market analysis and
benchmarking
Expert opinion, and advisory services
Foresighting (trends, weak signals
and wild cards)
Equipmentand facility rental service
Temporaryresearchfunding Ideaselectionand testing
Small-scale real-life testing and
experimentation
Grant writing and funding application
supportservice
Conceptand proof-of-concepttests –
conceptfeasibilitystudy
Large-scale real-life testing and
piloting
Marketing and sales support
Prototyping test Impactassessmentand validation test
Innovation network orchestration Simulation test Clinical trials
Panel management Usability testing
Post-marketsurveillance and market
acceptance testing
Intake and matching
Living Lab projectplanning and
management
Legal, regulation and safety standard
support
Systematic
multi-
method
approach
https://wiki.livinglab-
harmonization.com/xwiki/bin/view/R%26D%20Services/

Examples of different user groups
76
Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P. and Piirainen, T., 2010. Exploring quadruplehelix:
Outlining user-oriented innovation models. Työraportteja, 85/2010, Working Papers,
Työelämän tutkimuskeskus, Tampereen yliopisto, Tampereen yliopistopaino Oy Juvenes
Print, Tampere, Finland
Secondary = Use the systemthrough an intermediary
Tertiary = those affected by the introduction of the systemor who will influence its purchase
Multi-
stakeholder
participation

Degrees of user involvement
77
Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P. and Piirainen, T., 2010. Exploring
quadruplehelix: Outlining user-oriented innovation models.
Työraportteja, 85/2010, Working Papers, Työelämän tutkimuskeskus,
Tampereen yliopisto, Tampereen yliopistopaino Oy Juvenes Print,
Tampere, Finland
Arnstein, S.R., 1969.A ladderof citizen
participation. Journal ofthe American Institute of
planners,35(4),pp.216-224.
User-
centered
innovation
process

Innovation process examples from
“Living Lab”, “Product and service
development” and “design thinking”
literature
Santonen T, Julin M, Hirvikoski T, Salmi A, Leskinen J, Saastamoinen K, et al. Living lab business models
and services key findings from Product Validation in Health (ProVaHealth) project. Laurea-
ammattikorkeakoulu. 2020.
78

79
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Ståhlbröst,
A., 2009. Living Lab: an open and
citizen-centric approach for
innovation. International Journal of
Innovation and Regional
Development, 1(4), pp.356-370.
CONCEPT DESIGN =
(1) the essence of your idea
(2) Often explained via a collection of
sketches, images, and a written statement
PROTOTYPE
DESIGN
FINAL SYSTEM
DESIGN

80
Schuurman, D., De Marez, L. and Ballon,
P., 2016.The impact of living lab
methodologyon open innovation
contributions and outcomes.Technology
Innovation ManagementReview,6(1),
pp.7-16.
Coorevits,L., Georges,A.and Schuurman,
D., 2018.Aframework for field testing in
living lab innovation projects.Technology
Innovation ManagementReview,8(12),
pp.40-50.
Exploration
(1) Studying the “current
state” of users
(2) Identifying the
problem,
(3) Matchinga new
solutionto the
problem while taking
into account the
specific contexts in
which these problems
occur
Experimentation
(1) A prototype = something
being builtto represent a
product or experience before
the actual artefact is
completed
(2) the experimentationstage
puts the designed solutionto
the test, as much as possible
in a real-life context
Evaluation
(1) Innovation hasa rather high
level of maturity
(2) How to enter the market,
(e.g. determining which users
will adopt first, how to
communicatewith them, and
which features should be
launchedto maximize uptake
and continueduse)

Report of implementingliving labs and
ACSI-events and recommendations inthe
future circular economyefforts
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participant
s/documents/downloadPublic?documentI
ds=080166e5c1ef0b12&appId=PPGMS

82
A. Georges, D. Schuurman, B. Baccarne, L.
Coorevts User engagement in living lab
field trials Info, 17 (4) (2015), pp. 26-39

83
Rits, O., Schuurman, D. and Ballon, P., 2015. Exploring the benefits of integrating business model
research within living lab projects. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(12), pp.19-27.

84
De Witte, N.A., Broeckx, L., Vermeylen, S., Van Der Auwera, V. and Van Daele, T., 2021. Human Factors
in Living Lab Research. Technology Innovation Management Review, 11(9/10).

Examples from product and
service development literature
85

The Basic New Products Process
86
Crawford, C.M., 2008. New products
management. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

New Product Development Process Activities
87
Page, A.L., 1993. Assessing new product
development practices and performance:
Establishing crucial norms. Journal of product
innovation management, 10(4), pp.273-290.

User vs. data
88
Business Technology Standard:
https://www.managebt.org/content//uploads/Business_Technology_Standard_Book_20220510.pdf

Examples from user-centered
innovation and design literature
90

The original Double Diamond model
92

DISCOVER DEFINE DEVELOP DELIVER
Explore & Research
Understanding what
the problem is
Frame &
Conceptualize
Consolidate
and clarify
Ideate & Prototype
Co-creating
solutions
Test & Review
Testing with
real-users in
real-life settings
DEVELOPING
THE RIGHT
THING
DEVELOPING
THINGS RIGHT
Shared
vision
and
under-
standing
Iterations between phases
Innovationecosystemorchestration
Expert and service provider engagement
End-user (crowd)engagement
Initial
challenge
Validated
market
proof
solution
Double diamond aligned to living lab approach
Generating open data from all phases by to enable knowledge sharing and transnationalcollaboration
Applying multimethod research approachvia living lab innovation process / services

Examples of tools and methods
95

96
ACSI-events and recommendations inthe
future circular economyefforts
https://25cd04c9-5fc8-4b44-8c3c-
9ad39fc8bbac.usrfiles.com/ugd/25cd04_3
dad9933b14c4d4ea08f729cea7ba2f0.pdf

97
Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K.A., Thoben, K.D. and Schumacher, J., 2008. Living Labs: a new
developmentstrategy. EuropeanLiving Labs-a new approachfor human centric regional innovation,pp.1-14.

98
Pocket Book for Agile Piloting Facilitatingco-creative experimentation
https://6aika.fi/pocket-book-for-agile-piloting/

99
Report of implementingliving labs and ACSI-events and recommendations inthe future circular
economyefforts
9ad39fc8bbac.usrfiles.com/ugd/25cd04_3dad9933b14c4d4ea08f729cea7ba2f0.pdf

100
Report of implementing living labs and ACSI-events and recommendations inthe future circular economyefforts
9ad39fc8bbac.usrfiles.com/ugd/25cd04_3dad9933b14c4d4ea08f729cea7ba2f0.pdf

101
ACSI-events and recommendations in
the future circular economyefforts
(Includes 49 different livinglab activity
examples)
9ad39fc8bbac.usrfiles.com/ugd/25cd04_
3dad9933b14c4d4ea08f729cea7ba2f0.p
df

102
Sakakura, K., 2021. Co-creating a Living Lab for Sustainable Community Engagement.
In Digital Living Lab Days Conference (p. 249).

Living lab research can be also short and simple
103
PRODUCT VALIDATION IN HEALTH: Evaluating transnational testing in Baltic Sea Region Living Labs:
https://scanbalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ProVaHealth-Evaluating-transnational-testing-in-Baltic-Sea-Region-Living-Labs.pdf

104
https://wiki.livinglab-harmonization.com/xwiki/bin/view/Devices%20and%20technologies/
Devices and technologies for data collection

Templates for co-creation
▪ https://servicedesigntools.org/tools
▪ https://www.servicedesigntoolkit.org/downloads.html
▪ https://mycourses.aalto.fi/mod/folder/view.php?id=395049
▪ https://en.dt-toolbook.com/tools
105

Hands on session:
Emerging research
design and innovation
processes through LL
Eva Kehayia (McGill)
Teemu Santonen (LAUREA)

Hands on session: Emerging research
design and innovation processes
through LL
▪ Check Additional Course Material

Lunch break

Living Labs Governance
& Business models
Jokin Garatea (GAIA)
Based on Living lab business models andservices – Key findings fromProduct Validationin
Health(ProVaHealth) project . Teemu Santonen

Living Labs service offering model vs Business
Living Labs service offering classification model consist following main services, which each can
include one or more sub services. Main services are presented on the top of each column and example
of typical services withing each main service group are presented underneath of the headlines.
- Project planning and management
- Market and competitor intelligence services
- Co-creating products, services and processes
- Testing and validation services
- Business advisory and management consulting by giving expert opinion, sparring and
advisory services business modelling, risk and IPR-management
- Marketing and sales support activities include providing business contact and leads as well
as giving visibility and credibility via online presence in living lab websites and social media
channels, in showroom or during the events, and issued “user approved” certificates
110

Living labs should establish as many partnerships as posible
By definition living lab as an apporach is grounded on multi-stakeholder collaboration. Important for a living lab is
try to establish as many partnerships as posible. Living lab partner and customer relationships are typically
grounded on long-term relationships.
Typical partnership approaches:
Citizen driven partnership model: collaboration with NGOs
Local authority driven partnership model: Collaboration with local municipal and/or city authorities.
Industry driven partnership model: founded on establishing customership with device manufacturers and /or digital
service providers.
Intermediary (or widespread) partnership model: combining multiple partnership models or seeking seek
partnerships with as many partner type as posible.
State level cluster partnership model
112
Living lab business model
• Focused business model represent a strategy when a living lab has selected only few business model attributes
highly important
• Maxed-out business model represent and opposite strategy since all most all attributes are considered highly
important
• Balance business model aims to avoid the extreme selections

Wellbeing living lab business model
113

114
Support from policy makers as main revenue for living lab - Actually
Project grant and basic fixed funding are clearly the most dominating revenue sources for living labs.
Living lab revenues are mainly depending on their ability write winning funding proposals while providing
grant writing support services other stakeholders can help to win the projects.
Grant writing support services are especially emphasized by those living labs, who highlight it in their value
promise, and also provide education and training services. These activities are interlinked to local authority
driven partnership model and are grounded on long-term direct relationships.
Tendency to diversify the revenue source portfolio in the future. All other revenue source options, but project
grants and equipment/device retail, are expected to increase their importance, but are not reaching to same
level as the grants and fixed funding.
The economically sustainable living lab business model requires support from policy makers for example by
providing funding instruments for SMEs and startups to test and co-create their solutions with living labs.
The personnel costs are the most important cost element now and in the future. Living lab activities as a
user-centered approach are grounded on the interaction between various groups of people and the second
important cost the infrastructure and facility cost that are expected to increase.
Invest more on marketing and sales, which so far have been modest. This should help living labs to raise
awareness especially among SMEs and start-ups, who currently are not familiar with living lab services.

Governance

What is the project governance model? Ozeanlab
Governance refers to all those mechanisms, processes and rules through which people or sectors and their
different interests and effects on the marine environment are managed:
▪ Within the framework of Ozeanlab, governance must ensure compliance with the established conservation
objectives and measures and sustain coherence between management, coordination, communication and
exchange of experiences between the different spaces that weave said network.
▪ At the local level, it must contribute significantly to the search for solutions to make the uses and activities
in a certain space compatible with the natural values present and for which different protection figures were
designated by the Member States of the European Commission (LIC, ZEC or ZEPA).
The strategy maintains that an institutional structure is necessary that responds to the
characteristics and needs of each territory, that facilitates the integration of the agents involved in the
collective processes of planning, inquiry and learning, as well as in decision-making and management.
of conflicts.
The governance strategy model is based on values that must permeate all actions. At the local
level, it is developed from governance bodies or structures, created according to the needs of each
territory, which perform a series of essential functions through participatory processes with four main
purposes.
116

117
Proposal for the creation of a new EMP,
expansion or integration of
several
existing ones.
Collective inquiry and mutual learning to
identify new needs or make new proposals to improve
operations.
Design, evaluation
and adaptation of the
governance
structures
of a certain space,
including those necessary
to guarantee
administrative
coordination.
Decision- making to
decide and generate co-
responsibility in all
parties on those aspects
relevant.
functions
participatory processes
Development and implementation
of instruments,
plans or management measures and
incentives.
Conflict management
to address contradictory interests or
contrary to the conservation objectives of the
space that may arise.
Monitoring and assessment of management
measures, the quality of participatory
processes and governance, as wellas the transfer of
learning and
results.
Celebration and recognition
through the organization of events or spaces that
foster trust,
cohesion and a sense ofbelonging.
Values
Inclusion
and representativeness
Transparency and
scope
Shared leadership, dialogueand respect Accountability

Values
▪ Inclusion and representativeness: all people and organizations linked are actively
present in the processes and have access to participation, ensuring a weighted and
legitimized representativeness that includes minorities and marginalized sectors or those
with difficulties to participate, having the necessary time and resources.
▪ Shared leadership, dialogue and respect for diversity: democratization of the processes
and care of people and relationships in periodic interaction spaces that will promote trust,
collaboration, shared responsibility and balance and justice among all interests, prioritizing
the conservation of marine biodiversity.
▪ Transparency and scope: Clearly transmit the scope of the processes, as well as make
the documentation and evaluation systems of governance processes and actions
accessible, in a desire for mutual learning and continuous improvement. In addition, the
dissemination of information, the exchange and transfer of knowledge and experiences will
be favored, as well as the creation, strengthening and consolidation of networks.
▪ Accountability: with mechanisms for assigning responsibilities and commitments,
according to the scope of action, establishing a follow-up of the agreements and
disagreements reached, and informing about the consequences of the policies. 118

Governance
Why promote participation in the governance
▪ Participation is democracy and democracy is participation. Planning and management open
to the points of view of interested persons are highly desirable from a democratic perspective.
Participatory planning and management experiences indicate that participation can contribute
to greater effectiveness and efficiency in the management of protected areas and conservation
projects.
▪ Participatory processes are valuable and necessary tools that allow for better diagnoses,
favoring inquiry and comparison of different points of view and enriching the quality of
decision-making for the effective management of the living labs .
▪ The concept of “governance” emphasizes the urgent need to weave networks of participation
and dialogue, conflict resolution and decision-making to find the most appropriate and
effective solutions in the complex management of protected marine areas.
119

120
Participation is not improvised, it is designed and planned.
Design and planning make it possible to anticipate difficulties, adequately
size resources, instruments, means or channels at different times, and give a
specific and effective response to a problem or need depending on the
situation and its context. This favors the quality and transparency of the
process and, in turn, improves the relationship between users and managers
to guarantee the maintenance or restoration in a favorable state of
conservation of certain types of habitats and marine species.

The four goals of participatory processes
▪ Collective inquiry and mutual learning: to identify new needs or make new proposals that improve
the operation of the space, both at the level of management and of participation and transparency,
involving science, entities and people with traditional local knowledge, socioeconomic sectors, public
administration, etc.
▪ Decision-making: to decide and generate co-responsibility in all parties on those relevant aspects,
concerning the scope of action, whether in relation to the objectives and measures provided for in the
management instruments or in other areas of communication, monitoring or evaluation of the process
▪ Conflict management: to address those conflicts and interests that are contradictory or contrary to the
conservation objectives of the space that may arise, to transform them into sources of learning and
opportunities for social improvement at both the sectoral and institutional levels.
▪ Celebration and recognition: By organizing events or spaces that foster trust, cohesion and a sense
of belonging to the protected marine space, as well as celebrating achievements and meeting
objectives.
121

Design of participatory processes in living labs
122
Previous considerations for effective participatory processes:
▪ Clarity and relevance of objectives: coherence, transparency and clarity about
where we want to go with the participatory process is essential to avoid
generating false expectations.
▪ Consensus: the greater the consensus on the need, objectives and
methodologies of a participatory process (from the political, technical or social
spheres) the greater its chances of success.
▪ Leadership: although a core group coordinates the process, a shared
leadershipwill guarantee its plurality and transparency.
▪ Political: will seek recognition and political accompaniment from the beginning
of the process, so that its results are institutionally legitimized and are
implementedeffectively.

Design of participatory processes in living labs
123
Previous considerations for effective participatory processes:
▪ Implication: adding the diverse discourses, knowledge and sensitivities of
society, including perspectives that are not usually considered (such as that of
gender or that of migrants) gives plurality and strength to the process.
▪ Integration with other participation systems: coordinate with the bodies
andexisting participation structures in the territory, so as not to duplicate efforts
and saturatethe people and organizations involved

phases and steps. Practical exercise
124

126
In order to guarantee the quality of the essential functions of the governance structurein
living labs, the participatory processes that develop them must be elaborated considering
the phases of preparation, design, development and evaluation within which various steps
must be taken into account.
These steps should not be taken as something rigid that must be followed at face value, in
that only order. Rather, it is a list of actions to be checked to assess if they contribute, and
in what way, to achieving the objectives of the process specifically in each case.

Projects under Ocean living lab.
127
OSASUN DATA Smart Data platform for healthy aging.
WLF (Work Life Flow). Excellence based
profiling to identify and apply tools and
trainings for a better and
sustainable Work-Life-Flow

128
EXERCISE FOR THE PARTICIPATOY APPROACH LIVING LAB
METHODOLOGY.
After the closing today, we are planning a visit to the Athletic Football Club
Museum, which is working in a specific program to stimulate elderly people
with Alzheimer's "With the Athletic in the memory".
https://athleticclubfundazioa.eus/con-el-athletic-en-la-memoria/
Reminiscence workshop carried out in the field of the Athletic Club, San
Mamés.

129
This initiative, organized by the FEAFV (Spanish Federation of Associations of Veteran Soccer Players) with the
collaboration of the AEA (Association of Former Athletic Club Soccer Players) and the Athletic Club
Foundation, aims to bring out the old memories of the elderly in the face of stimuli associated with his
experiences with Athletic and thus help fight Alzheimer's or other types of dementia.
After the closing, , we are planning a visit to the Athletic Football Club Stadium and to have some drinks to
close.
EXERCISE ABOUT GOVERNANCE: VALUES RELATED TO
PARTICIPATION WITH ATHLETIC IN MEMORY
• Inclusion and representativeness
• Shared leadership
• Transparencyand scope
• Accountability

130
WITH ATHLETIC IN MEMORY
Barandiaran Residence in Durango have visited San
Mamés in a new edition of the Reminiscence
Workshops
A dozen people with neurodegenerative diseases from the
Barandiaran Residence in Durango have participated in a new
editionof the Reminiscence Workshops organized by the FEAFV
(Spanish Federation of Veteran Soccer Associations), and with the
collaboration of the AEA (Association of Ex-Athletic Club Soccer
Players) and the Athletic Club Foundation.

131
The reminiscence day consisted of a guided visit to the
Club Museum and a subsequent tour of the San Mamés
pitch. The old memories of the elderly surface before the
stimuli associated with their experiences with Athletic
and serve as a stimulus to fight Alzheimer's. The ex-
soccer players who have accompanied the elderly during
therapy have been José Ángel Iribar , president of the
AEA, Tzibi Juaristi , Pablo Otaolea and Gontzal Suances , in
his double capacity as ex-player and representative of the
Athletic Club Foundation.

Experimentation,
stakeholder engagement
& co-creation in Living
Labs through
case studies
Miguel Rujas - Diego Carvajal (UPM)

Who are we?

WHAT IS CO-CREATION?

BASIC CONCEPTS

What is co-creation?
▪ ▪“Co-creation is about involving stakeholders, particularly end users in
the innovation of technologies and services” [1]
▪ ▪“Co-creation of value”: as the outcome of a co-design process with no
value created until the service is consumed [2]
▪ ▪“Active, creative and social collaboration process between producers
and customers”
exchange of opinions, thoughts... between
different players involved in the development
of a service and/or product.

Why co-creation?
• The purpose of co-creation between customers, providers and third
parties is to stimulate change [3]
• Co-creation in Living Labs is important because users
place importance on the value that emerges while the process is of little
account to them [4]

Why co-creation?

User involvement and engagement
Multiple perspectives on LLs characterize them with “early
involvement of users” and “active involvement of users”

Platform Design Toolkit (macro-level)
 Identify opportunities to build platform
strategies by analyzing the ecosystem
 Design the marketplace, the extension
platform, and infrastructural solutions
 Test and validate designs through
interviews and MVPs
 Solve the typical chicken egg problems in
kickstarting a new product depending on
network effects
 Achieve sustainable growth by investing in
the right growth engines
 Manage at organization-wide portfolios of
platform strategies 143
https://www.boundaryless.io/

User-centred design (UCD)
Design focus on the users and their needs
144
“Not only analyse how users use a product, but also to
test the validity of their assumptions”
C. DELL’ERA, P. LANDONI, and S. J. GONZALEZ, "INVESTIGATING THE INNOVATION IMPACTS OF USER-CENTRED AND PARTICIPATORY STRATEGIES
ADOPTED BY EUROPEAN LIVING LABS," International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 23, no. 05, p. 1950048, May. 2019. Accessed:Jun. 9,
2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919619500488
Co-creationsessionby UPM – VITALISESummerSchool2023

UCD in Living Labs
145
Users are subjects and
objects of the innovation
C. Dell'Era and P. Landoni, "Living Lab: A Methodology between User-CentredDesignand Participatory
Design," Creativity and Innovation Management, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 137–154, Mar.2014. Accessed:Jun. 9, 2022.
[Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061
Provides a new perspective
to the move to UCD to
Participatory Design

Goal Directed Design (GDD)
146
M. K. Sabariah, "Recommendation of Information Architecture Designon Higher Education Institution Website Using Card Sorting Approach on Goal-DirectedDesignMethod," International
Journal on Information and Communication Technology (IJoICT), vol. 2, no. 1, p. 45, Jul. 2016. Accessed: Jun. 9, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.21108/ijoict.2016.21.79
Design about product definition, based on the goals of
users, needs of the business and the constraints of
technology

Activity Centred Design (ACD)
147
Activity CentredDesign. Moving beyond the user. | by Dermot | Dermot Holmes | Medium
[Online]. Available: https://medium.com/dermot-holmes/activity-centred-design-
dd28ed1eec59
Design that focuses on how a system
produces an outcome as a result of
activity
Focus on the whole system
rather than just the user

Service Design (SD)
Process of planning and organizing people, infrastructure,
communication and material components of a service, with the
goal of improving the service’s quality, the interactions between a
provider and its customers, and the customers’ experiences
148
What is Service Designand why it matters
Accessed: 2022-06-10. [Online]. Available :
https://www.imaginarycloud.com/blog/what-is-service-design/

Number of techniques
150
1. Focus groups
to analyse and gather feedback on a products, services and marketing campaigns. It usually
brings together 5 to 10 people and always has a moderator to lead the exchange of ideas.
2. Workshops
a type of event that brings together people interested in learning more about a particular
topic. It is a kind of training for the development of specific skills through practical activities.
3. Interviews
a structuredconversation where one participant asks questions, and the other provides
answers. In common parlance, the word "interview" refers to a one-on-one conversation
between an interviewer and an interviewee.
4. Surveys
a research method used for collecting data from a predefined group of respondents to gain
information and insights into various topics of interest.
5. Usage tests
monitoring users using your solution witnessing what turns up

Newest techniques
151
1. Design thinking - bring together differentexperiences,opinions and perspectives on a problem in order to
create innovations that focus on the user and solve his problems inthe best possible way.
2. World café - the actors involved in the innovation process can be brought into conversation with each other in
orderto discuss problemsand questions in small groups
3. Open Space - Participants communicate topics (e.g. frailties due to age) they have chosenthemselves to the
plenum and initiate their own working groups.
4. Service blueprint - is a method for visualizing integrative processes,i.e. processesthat are
characterized by the integration of resources of several actors. This allows customers and other stakeholders to be included
in the process map and their view of the process.
5. Usage tests - understood as the intention of potential users to adopt an innovative offer,is a necessary
condition formarket success.

ACTIVAGE project
153
Active & Healthy Ageing IoT based solutions
and services, supporting and extending the
independent living of older adults in their
living environments, and responding to real
needs of caregivers, service providers and
public authorities.
+6000 users +65 years old and 1300 caregivers
an IoT based solution in a smart living environment to
monitor and consequently provide caregivers
interventions to the patients, through sensor-based
creative and leisure activities
• To understand the needs of the end users of the DS
MAD solutions, i.e. the elderly, formal caregivers and
informal caregivers.
• Eliciting functional and non-functional requirements of
the IoT technologies to be deployed in older people's
environments in order to tailor and customise them
3 FOCUS GROUP

HOOP project
154
HOOP is a remote rehabilitation tool for
people with Parkinson Disease. HOOP aims
to complement the rehabilitation therapies
provided in specialized centres with remote
training by providing a mobile application with a
pair of wearable sensors to be worn on the
wrists or ankles, depending on the exercise.
15 PD users first prototype + medical staff
46 PD users final version + caregivers
FOCUS GROUP + INTERVIEWS + USABILITYTESTS
INSPIRATION HERE:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=hoop.hooppremium
• The co-creation is carried out through meetings with medical
professionals, where they helped how to adapt the functions of the
application to daily clinical practices, and meetings with formal caregivers
(residences and nurseries) to adapt the use of mobile digital solutions.
• Through Living Labs, test sessions in real controlled environments,
with appropriate safety measures for vulnerable patients

Better@Home project
155
Deploy and exploit an integrated care solution
for patients hospitalized at home, enabled by
digital technologies, with the aim to improve
patient healthcare outcomes and patient
satisfaction.
10 medical staff
ONLINE FOCUS GROUP + INTERVIEWS – COVID19
OUTBREAK
▪ The co-creation was focused on the creation of training models
for patients and professionals and the creation of material for
patient follow-up
▪ Through the use Living Labs technology, obtain remotely
measurements of the patient’s vital signs, as well as virtual
follow-ups. Its aim is to improve the optimization of the existing
resources

Key take home messages
And yours?
156
Co-creation is a process that involves joint activities of a
provider with other stakeholders and aims to generate
value for the parties involved and for other beneficiaries.
IT IS A KEY PART OF THE INNOVATION PROCESS

References
 [1] Eriksson, Mats & Kulkki, Seija. (2005).State-of-the-art in Utilizing Living Labs Approachto User-centric ICT Innovation - A
EuropeanApproach.State-of-the-art in Utilizing Living Labs Approachto User-centric ICT Innovation. 15.
 [2] Vargo, S. L. y Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolvingto a New Dominant Logic for Marketing.Journalof Marketing, 68(1), 1–
17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
 [3] Leminen, Seppo& Fred, Minna & Mika, Kortelainen& Westerlund, Mika. (2011). Co-creation with Users and Customers in
LivingLabs - Integratingusers and customers in companies’business processes.
 [4] Beutel, T., Jonas, J.M., & Moeslein, K. (2017). Co-Creation and User Involvementin a Living Lab : An Evaluation of Applied
Methods.
 [5] Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creatingand Profitingfrom Technology. (2004). EuropeanJournal of Innovation
Management, 7(4), 325–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060410565074
 [6] Compagnucci,L., Spigarelli,F., Coelho, J. y Duarte, C. (2021). LivingLabs and user engagement for innovation and
sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 289, 125721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125721
 [7] Ballon, P. y Schuurman,D. (2015). Livinglabs: concepts, tools and cases. info, 17(4). https://doi.org/10.1108/info-04-2015-
0024
 [8] Georges, A., Schuurman,D., Baccarne,B. y Coorevits, L. (2015). User engagement in livinglab field trials. info, 17(4), 26–
39. https://doi.org/10.1108/info-01-2015-0011
158

This project has received funding from European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 101007990.
Contact us
Online presence
https://vitalise-project.eu
https://twitter.com/VITALISEproject
https://www.facebook.com/VITALISEproject/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/vitalise-project/
Subscribe to our newsletter:
European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)
https://enoll.org/
https://openlivinglabdays.com/
info@vitalise-project.eu
Project coordinator:
Dr. Evdokimos Konstantinidis
Scientific coordinator:
Prof. Panos Bamidis
Name and affiliation of the presenter
email of the presenter

VITALISE Summer School 2023_DAY 3 FINAL.pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to VITALISE Summer School 2023_DAY 3 FINAL.pdf

Similar to VITALISE Summer School 2023_DAY 3 FINAL.pdf (20)

More from VITALISEProject

More from VITALISEProject (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

VITALISE Summer School 2023_DAY 3 FINAL.pdf