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
In my PD research, I want to focus on how collectivity is practiced in the arts, by learning from the Indonesian multidisciplinary art collective ruangrupa’s use of [the international art exhibition] ‘documenta’ as a tool, and the potential of continuing the experiences outside this group and context. The art practices programmed by ruangrupa can be understood as complex and ambiguous where art is not at the center of attention but part of a larger communal productivity. And where it is not sufficient to be merely critical, and merely voice opposition, but to engage, and create alternatives in everyday life [without being problem-solving or social design]. My research concerns the potential of continuing these practices and experiences outside this particular artist group and exhibition context. Ruangrupa’s work reveals problems of the current Western art system, how it is (hierarchically) organized, the implicit rules, norms and values it is based on. Ruangrupa's practice thus serves as an exercise and point of departure to answer questions about forms of self-organization within the art field. Its collective and multidisciplinary art practice implies the question whether it also can serve as a model for living together on a larger scale (also outside the arts), beyond hierarchies of social and professional structures. There is currently a lack of research on these particular art practices, so that they are not easily accessible for non-participants. For the art field in particular, this concerns the question whether contemporary art can and needs to take place outside established Western gallery/museum, art/curatorial paradigms and what can be learned from ruangrupa's and documenta fifteen's blending of art practice with daily life practice. This is also an urgent practical issue for art schools (including my school Willem de Kooning Academy) that increasingly develop art study programs outside the studio and gallery art paradigm.
