Best practices Database for Living Labs - ALCOTRA - Innovation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Profile #4: Network-oriented University spin-off 1 out of 4 occurrences within the 1 st and 2 nd wave ENoLL belonged to this case, which - together with the following one - encompasses that wide majority of European Living Labs that had been created or were being animated by a University. However, this group was split into two clusters, in order to highlight the (very relevant) number of cases where the initiative of a University was clearly identifiable as the “prime mover” of a network of relations aimed at the implementation of User driven, Open Innovation concepts in real life environments. A second reason for isolating this case is that right after the previous profile (i.e. the Government backed one), this cluster of Living Labs included the second most numerous and qualified number of recorded trials. However, there could also be a matter of privacy here, preventing the collection of a comparable number of successful results from the remaining two clusters, both characterised by a more explicit care for confidentiality. Profile #5: High-tech R&D Laboratory Together with the previous profile, this also documents the central role played by the European Universities in the initiation of the Living Labs “phenomenon”. Although not exclusively belonging to academia, the majority of Living Labs grouped in this cluster had the nature of public-private partnerships centred around the provision of testing facilities to a qualified network of stakeholders, where the S&T orientation of those initiatives was strongly dependent on the active involvement of local high education institutions. Most trials documented in this case did leverage on ICT as transversal, enabling technologies in a variety of industrial domains, typically selected for their relevance to regional or local development. This confirms the intuition that Living Labs primarily have a nature of supporting instruments to regional innovation policies. Profile #6: Business services provider This was the second least represented case (8% of occurrences). This Living Lab profile depicted a private or public, business oriented, real or virtual (cooperative) organisation, aiming to provide testing and validation services to local enterprises – particularly SMEs. Typically this profile did not disclose a high number of successful trials, due to obvious confidentiality reasons. Nonetheless, this cluster (like profile #2 based on single enterprises initiatives) was seen as extremely important to the smooth progress of future Living Labs activities, to the extent it could serve as a showcase for the consolidation of a business model that goes beyond the exclusive dependence on external funding sources. In the framework of Alcotra Innovation, we have had the opportunity to repeat the above assessment, this time using as reference the complete population of ENoLL members. Quite interestingly, the composition of Living Lab profiles described in Figure 24 for the ‘1 st and 2 nd wave’ is confirmed for the entire universe. The project is co-funded by the ERDF Page 36 of 78
Figure 25: Key Profiles of Living Labs (Source: ENoLL database) The next diagrams compare the distribution of profiles for the EU27 and the non-EU Living Labs that are members of ENoLL. Figure 26: Key Profiles of EU27 and non-EU ENoLL members (Source: ENoLL database) The project is co-funded by the ERDF Page 37 of 78
Page 1 and 2: Alcotra Innovation project Delivera
Page 3 and 4: Preface For the study and creation
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 7
Page 7 and 8: 1. Introduction Much has been writt
Page 9 and 10: 2. Living Labs as Territorial Innov
Page 11 and 12: (from a public authority’s viewpo
Page 13 and 14: • People (User) Integration in De
Page 15 and 16: 3.1 The FormIT Process The FormIT p
Page 17 and 18: Figure 7: Sample Living Lab’s tri
Page 19 and 20: 3.4 The Technological Platform Mode
Page 21 and 22: Figure 10: Living Labs as Functiona
Page 23 and 24: Figure 11: The Living Lab Innovatio
Page 25 and 26: • Openness: the innovation proces
Page 27 and 28: Figure 14: Geographical distributio
Page 29 and 30: scanned for the identification of t
Page 31 and 32: Turning now our attention to the e-
Page 33 and 34: Figure 23: Relative performance of
Page 35: Figure 24: Key Profiles of Living L
Page 39 and 40: 6. References [1] Molinari, F. 2011
Page 41 and 42: Annex A: Full Database of ENoLL Mem
Page 43 and 44: France OFF-ROAD MEMORY Living Lab w
Page 45 and 46: Slovenia LENS Living Lab www.einova
Page 47 and 48: The project is co-funded by the ERD
Page 61 and 62: TABLE OF CONTENTS 7. INTRODUCTION 6
Page 63 and 64: 8. Ownership of existing Living Lab
Page 65 and 66: 10. ENoLL evaluation criteria In th
Page 67 and 68: 12. Extension of existing database
Page 69 and 70: 13.4 Organisation and Governance Th
Page 71 and 72: Figure 28: spider-web diagram The t
Page 73 and 74: SME Innovation Support Figure 35: S
Page 75 and 76: As it can be seen the new database
Page 77 and 78: In order to search for specific rec

Best practices Database for Living Labs - ALCOTRA - Innovation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?