Best practices Database for Living Labs - ALCOTRA - Innovation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Since the identified Living Labs stem from the first three calls, it can be assumed that they are reasonable sustainable and not only based on paper. However a deeper analysis of these Living Labs has been deferred, since Alcotra needs first to clarify the thematic sub-topics that are to be followed as part of the project, if these sub-topics are identified (currently scheduled for September 2011) a further filtering on the bases of the existing records can be achieved. The project is co-funded by the ERDF Page 66 of 78
12. Extension of existing database As the Living Lab movement and the Living Labs in it are maturing there is an increased need to replicate the success of some of the Living Labs in different parts in Europe. Thus the need for the definition of real best practices started to grow especially towards the end of the CO-LLabs project (ca. 1 year ago). In order to allow for the identification of Best practices in Europe an Indicator Framework had to be defined. However the topic of Living Labs is quite diverse and it is difficult to find Indicators that can be deployed as best practice indicators regardless of e.g. the thematic issues dealt with inside a Living Lab. At the same time one of the biggest problems in the Living Lab area is still that no description of a methodology or method exists which will helps to deploy a Living Lab from scratch, currently the Living Lab activities are mainly steered by case studies with limited transferability. In order to deal with this problem the Living Lab cube was developed by the partners in the CO-LLabs project, which identifies the different dimensions of a living lab and describes how to deploy them. 13. Best practices criteria As part of the Corelabs project a framework was developed to assess the performance of Living Labs according to the relevant dimensions and characteristics of living labs. Seven categories for analysis and evaluation of the Living Labs were identified. These categories are derived from the “interoperability cube” developed within the CORELABS CA (EP# 035065) . “The harmonization cube not only represents the most important elements of a Living Lab, but also enables specifying bridges between existing Living Labs, i.e., to learn from each other, benchmark the validation of user behavior studies, exchange best practices, and interconnect the Living Labs. Next to facilitating a common ground for sharing, the cube model enables recognizing the degree of harmonization of used methods and tools in Living Labs.” [4] Later on an additional indicator was added to identify the contribution of living labs to SME-Innovation. The categories are described below. Figure 27: Seven Categories The project is co-funded by the ERDF Page 67 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 and 36: Figure 24: Key Profiles of Living L
Page 37 and 38: Figure 25: 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: 10. ENoLL evaluation criteria In th
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
show all

Best practices Database for Living Labs - ALCOTRA - Innovation

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

Delete template?

Save as template?