The workshop aims to understand how a living lab network structures contribute to system innovation. Living labs as system innovation initiatives can substantially alter established network structures. Moreover, structures can undergo alterations through subtle interventions, with impact on the overall outcomes of living labs. To understand how such change occurs, we develop a multilevel network perspective to study collaborations toward system innovation. We take this perspective to help understand living lab dynamics, drawing on innovative examples and taking into consideration the multilayered structures that the collaboration comprises.
MULTIFILE
Living labs are complex multi-stakeholder collaborations that often employ a usercentred and design-driven methodology to foster innovation. Conventional management tools fall short in evaluating them. However, some methods and tools dedicated to living labs' special characteristics and goals have already been developed. Most of them are still in their testing phase. Those tools are not easily accessible and can only be found in extensive research reports, which are difficult to dissect. Therefore, this paper reviews seven evaluation methods and tools specially developed for living labs. Each section of this paper is structured in the following manner: tool’s introduction (1), who uses the tool (2), and how it should be used (3). While the first set of tools, namely “ENoLL 20 Indicators”, “SISCODE Self-assessment”, and “SCIROCCO Exchange Tool” assess a living lab as an organisation and are diving deeper into the organisational activities and the complex context, the second set of methods and tools, “FormIT” and “Living Lab Markers”, evaluate living labs’ methodologies: the process they use to come to innovations. The paper's final section presents “CheRRIes Monitoring and Evaluation Tool” and “TALIA Indicator for Benchmarking Service for Regions”, which assess the regional impact made by living labs. As every living lab is different regarding its maturity (as an organisation and in its methodology) and the scope of impact it wants to make, the most crucial decision when evaluating is to determine the focus of the assessment. This overview allows for a first orientation on worked-out methods and on possible indicators to use. It also concludes that the existing tools are quite managerial in their method and aesthetics and calls for designers and social scientists to develop more playful, engaging and (possibly) learning-oriented tools to evaluate living labs in the future. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/overdiek12345/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/mari-genova-17a727196/?originalSubdomain=nl
DOCUMENT
Deze publicatie is ontwikkeld door het lectoraat Communicatie, Participatie en Sociaal-Ecologisch Leren (CoPSEL) in samenwerking met partneruniversiteiten als een eindresultaat van het Invest4Excellence project. Het magazine onderzoekt de complexiteit en dynamiek van Living Labs door met een drietal metaforen (koken, reizen en Do-It-Yourself) te reflecteren op Living Labs zowel in Nederland, Europa en daarbuiten.
DOCUMENT
This paper analyses co-creation in urban living labs through a multi-level network perspective on system innovation. We draw on the case House of Skills, a large, multi-stakeholder living lab aimed at developing a ‘skills-based’ approach towards labour market innovation within the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region. Ouranalysis helps understand stakeholder dynamics towards system innovation, drawing on an innovative living lab example and taking into consideration the multi-layered structures that comprise the collaboration. Our conceptual framework provides an important theoretical contribution to innovation studies and offers a practical repertoire that can help practitioners improve co-creation of shared value in living labs, towards orchestrating flexible structures that strengthen the impact of their initiatives.
LINK
At first glance, Public Sector Innovation (PSI) Labs are gaining prominence within academic literature, the European Union (EU) and beyond. However, because of the relative newness and conceptual ambiguity of this concept, the exact contribution of these labs to theory and practice is still unclear. In addition, most research has been looking at case studies. This publication breaks new ground by elaborating on the concept and also by looking at the perception of these labs in different contexts, by comparing multiple labs in multiple countries. In doing so, we raised the question: ‘What is the perceived added value of Public Sector Innovation labs for further developing theory as well as for society?’ In order to answer this question, by way of an experiment, we combined theoretical research together with focus groups with members of the EU funded project Multi Disciplinary Innovation for Social Change (SHIINE) in combination with questionnaires to selected PSI labs, thus providing us with rich data. Our experimental methodology uncovered a conceptual bias that is probably existent in similar studies and needs to be acknowledged more. In addition, we found that PSI labs have developed over time into an amalgam of two competing concepts. To conclude, we believe that the specific potential of PSI labs as an internal space for innovation within institutions is underutilised. We believe this could be improved by acknowledging the specific aim of PSI labs in a co-creative setting between relevant stakeholders, such as Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).
DOCUMENT
Sport for development (SFD) initiatives have faced numerous criticisms around the focus on individual-level (micro) outcomes and lack of integration at the community (meso) and structural (macro) levels. As a result, there is growing recognition that programmes need to find ways to work with and engage a wide range of community members and stakeholders through more inclusive, participatory approaches. One such approach is known as Living Labs. In the following conceptual article, we present the Sport and Social Cohesion Lab (SSCL) project, which implemented a Living Lab approach in various sport-based programmes from four different European countries. The main components of the Living Lab framework are presented, and practical insights are derived from the project. In addition, the unique and sometimes critical role of sport is reflected upon in relation to the Living Lab context. Through this, this article provides practitioners and academics with potential building blocks to implement Living Labs and/or embed participatory approaches in sport and physical activity contexts and social settings more generally.
DOCUMENT
MULTIFILE
Presentation held at the WINNER conference that took place from 18-20 October, 2022.
DOCUMENT
Summary with good practices from the Interreg ITRACT project on smart mobility in rural areas.
DOCUMENT
Co-creation and social innovation are currently linked concepts in both policy and academic research. Almost always, the attitude towards these concepts is intrinsically positive, although evidence of their added value is lacking. In my research, I looked at the development of social innovation and co-creation in theory and practice. By analysing the use of these notions in EU policies, EU grants and awarded EU projects, I was able to show that both concepts are not only unclear, but are also mutually strengthen and add value to each other. For example, co-creation is seen as an integral part of social innovation and therefore stakeholder involvement is sufficient to qualify as good social innovation, without further evidence. A systematic literature review supports these findings.Because of the ambiguity of both concepts and the fact that they reinforce each other, there is hardly any attention to the quality of co-creation as such within social innovation. We witness this not only in social innovation projects, but also, for example, in so-called living labs. In order to monitor and improve the quality of co-creation within social innovation, an evaluation framework was developed based on a systematic literature review. This framework can be used by both policy makers and participants in social innovation projects.
DOCUMENT
