Tuesday 29th of June, room 22 Dipoli, Case 5

present:

Hakki Altun (Case Leader 2)

Erap Bolkent (Case Group Member)
Sijme Geurts (Facilitator)
Anna Kojo (Case Recorder)
Juho Mäkinen (Case Group Member)
Terttu Pakarinen (Case Group Member)
Tuija Partio (Case Group Member)
Petra Skrobot (Case Group Member)
Carmen Stahl (Case Leader 1)
Erkki Vauramo (Case Group Member)
Timo Vierelä (Case Group Member)
absent:
Ehsan Baha (Case Owner)
Tuija Hirvikoski
Anne Vuorinen

- The group presented themselves and their expertise – A lot of variety among case
members expertise – A good thing or bad?
- Who is who? Introductory of the members in the case group -> "labeling" the
members
- The group feels that the roles are uncertain inside the group: who is doing what
and why? The case owner is missing and that is a problem for the group because
that is the source of the uncertainty
- What is expected from the group? -> come up with an idea for new "products,
concepts, services etc" for the elderly
- What is ALV? What is the point of it?
- What is our overall goal? -> Case objectives seems to be unclear still
-> Cost effective social innovations, testing and finding the evidence to support the
assumption that the innovation is needed
-> do we have enough information about the end-users needs?
- How is the group feeling? -> lost; the task is not clear, neither is the case; case
owner is missing;
- Expectations of the group work are not clear
- What is the purpose of the Laureas Living Lab? -> Innovation platform for creating
new services for elderly people
- The current elderly care environments do not support home-like living
- Companies, students and future clients need all to work together to achieve the
goal
- Why is this Living Lab special? What are the benefits to all the stakeholders? Who
even are the stakeholders (municipalities, elderly & their relatives, companies, non-
profit org., students, universities, health care professionals?
- Is our target to create a solution? -> Give ideas about what the environment
(Living Lab) should be like
- What are the stakeholders needs and wants? Why would they come to the Lab?
What do they except from each other?
- Stakeholders: Universities/Health&Social care comp.&institutions/city planning
(transportation incl.)/municipalities/elderly/non-governmental org./
- What do stakeholders value and need?:
Municipalities -> improving quality of services & cost effectively
Elderly -> socializing, be more active, feeling of usefulness, improve prototypes
NGO's -> ?
- The physical and monetary limitations need to be included more in the case group
work also keeping in mind that the Lab needs to be flexible taking into
consideration different projects
- What should the planning process be like? How do we generate new innovations or
ideas? -> Different approaches:
1) to look at the needs of the stakeholders -> no bias -> more chances for new
innovations!
2) testing the already existing solutions in the Lab -> no new innovations?
- User driven vs. outcome driven approaches; neither one is not necessarily better,
but they lead to different kind of outcomes

- No conclusions were made; the group is still “walking in the dark”

- Objective of the case group is becoming clearer, but is it the same objective with
the case owner?
- Different techniques of developing a platform has been discussed; it seems that
the user driven approach is favored by the majority of the group members
- Group dynamics are not optimal at this point, but that can be normal at this stage
of case process