Best practices Database for Living Labs - ALCOTRA - Innovation

Figure 10: Living Labs as Functional Regions (from: [3])
3.5.2 Operating conditions
Living Labs also differentiate because of the playground in which innovation is grown. ENoLL’s definition
prescribes ‘real-life’ environments, which encourage carrying out the innovation process in an uncontrolled
context that is fully consistent with the product’s or service’s usage conditions. In particular, Følstad’s
review ([28], p. 116) proposes an attenuated definition whereby innovation takes place in “(semi)realistic
contexts”, thus considering to engage users either in partly controlled environments or in what is often
described as the uncontrolled “real-life”.
‘Users’ here generally means ‘end users’, or those specific persons adopting and being impacted by the
innovation considered. In other words, the term relates to citizens, consumers and possibly employees, if
that innovation assumes an organizational meaning. A particularly important category of end users is
represented by the “lead users”, described [in 29] as a particular group of people “on the leading edge of
the market with respect to important market trends”. The two defining characters of lead-users are that (a)
they are ahead with respect to important market trends, typically early adopters, and (b) they expect to
gain relatively high benefits from a given solution [30].
More recently, the Web 2.0 explosion has demonstrated the positive impact of involving user communities
in mass collaboration projects (e.g. Wikipedia, crowdsourcing, etc.) that collectively create new contents
and applications. Because of heterogeneity of users’ requirements and the growing demand for solutions
that are more precisely meeting individual needs, the innovation driven by users provides a very necessary
complement to manufacturer innovation. In practice, however, it is often very difficult to shift product
development activities from manufacturers to lead users: if it is not possible to find representative users for
all user groups, a broad variety of users is needed to assess all relevant user needs.
This condition that user involvement activities should take place in real-world contexts is a main difference
between the Living Lab approach and traditional user involvement methods. This means, for example, that
potential users are involved all day round. Hence, the aim here is to create as authentic a usage situation as
possible, whereas in traditional practice users can be asked to use a system or device in a so-called field
study, then in a not fully authentic context.
The rationale for such realism having instrumental value in Living Labs is that innovations should ultimately
take place in the “real world”. For example, if a user tests a mobile service, s/he can gain understanding of
how it functions and fits into her/his usage context at all times and in diverse ordinary situations: at the end
Page 21 of 78
The project is co-funded by the ERDF