Você está na página 1de 10


A Catalogue of state-of-the-art concepts, exis6ng tools and lessons learned for cross- border Living Lab networks Summary of the Findings
May 12, 2010

Exis6ng tools and lessons learned for cross-border Living Lab networks
Process: WP1 conducted extensive LL network SOTA review and analysis on M1-M6 of Apollon project Findings collected from x ini6a6ves in interviews and project documenta6on reviews Findings reported in 4 categories and analyzed with SWOT and relevance to APOLLON project Scope: European Living Lab (cross-border) networks Network level collabora6on and management Development trends Methodologies Success Factors, added value

Since 2006 trend towards more networked forms of living lab collabora6on Objec6ves emphasize learning, sharing, harmoniza6on and joint projects Common consent regarding the vast poten6al impact of cross-border networking and shared prac6ces exist Networks s6ll in early stages and no specic criteria, rules, tools or methodologies for networks exist

Networks established in boUom-up process from individual ini6a6ves Both regional and thema6c networks exist Collabora6on project based Various management models:based on stages of life cycle, layers of interac6on, categoriza6on by use cases, phases of development or Living Lab maturity Culture, contract and compe66on issues priority topics that must be agreed on Issues with sustainability

Studied Networks of Living Labs

European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) - 2006 Nordic-Bal6c Network of Living labs - 2007 The Finnish Network of Living Labs Open Living Labs Sweden, OLLSE - 2007 Network of Dutch Living Labs: Orange Living labs - 2008 UK Living labs Portuguese Network of Living Labs Projects: C@R (Collabora6on at Rural) Ecospace Laboranova COLLABS Finlab ENoLL Nordic OpenLite Open Living Labs SwEden (OLLSE) CoreLabs PanLabII

The applied common valida6on and consolida6on of interview outcomes have been kept very simple by inten6on and comprises the following informa6on: Main category and sub-category according to the categoriza6on of the APOLLON methodology framework The concept category dis6nguishing between methodologies, organiza6onal/governance structures and tools The origin of the nding naming the projects or ini6a6ves name and its concept A verbal descrip6on summarizing the main facts about the nding A SWOT analysis lis6ng strengths, weaknesses, opportuni6es and threats of the ndings Available references for further details An indica6on of the relevance of the ndings for the APOLLON methodology framework

The exchange of best prac6ces and lessons learned is seen as the most important goal of the network. When the network has produced concrete output, it is s6ll more a gathering of what is available or possible within (each of) the Living labs. the sustainability of the networks is unsure There is a lack of clear dened rules and procedures within the network that determine how partners should collaborate with each other it is required to start developing new methods, tools, protocols, technical requirements and to establish a beUer exchange and re-usability of processes and procedures crea6ng higher impact on the product / service innovator, the user and the whole local/regional eco-system. leverage their exper6se and combine customers and suppliers into a seamlessly integrated value network by embedding their local ecosystems into a broader cross-border ecosystem of Living Lab networks.

SWOT Analysis of the European Living Lab Networks

Six success criteria for networking

Open service architecture that supports intelligent service crea6on and adapta6on Seamless & pervasive environment for service and knowledge discovery Secure, dependable and trustworthy infrastructure Network, device and applica6on interoperability Applica6on Support for variety of interfaces

Apollon Categoriza6on for Living Lab Network Management