Post on 16-Jan-2016
description
Open innovation systems for value creation and knowledge exchange: Results from the Flemish
LeYLab
Dimitri Schuurman
@DimiSchuurman
Living Labs theoretical positioning
Living Labs as open innovation ecosystems
Living Lab infrastructure
Material infrastructure Immaterial infrastructure
- Physical networks - End-users
- User devices - Stakeholders
- Research equipment - Environment
Adapted from Leminen & Westerlund, 2012
Open Innovation Processes
• Exploitation: Purposive outflows of knowledge to leverage existing technological capabilities outside the boundaries of the organization
• Exploration: Purposive inflows to capture and benefit from external sources of knowledge to enhance current technological developments
• Retention: the storage, maintenance and reuse of knowledge over time
Case study: LeYLab Living Lab
LeYlab infrastructure
Material infrastructure Immaterial infrastructure
- Fibre network - 98 households & 17 local non-private connections
- Modems, tablets & miniPCs - 12 consortium partners & 3 external utilizers
- Logging infrastructure - Local area in the city of Kortrijk
Case study: 6 Living Lab-cases
Internal cases
•Fibre roll-out: successful (user data, domestication research, exploitation possibilities), but time-consuming
•eHealth case: no match with infrastructure nor panel
•AV-database case: somewhat successful, delay hindred ‘post’-stage
Case study: 6 Living Lab-cases
External cases
•Cloudfriends: perfect match with panel & infrastructure, technology exploitation, no post-phase (yet)
•WeePeeTV: good match with local character and research socialized panel members, assessment beyond panel, currently finishing project
•Poppidups: use of local ecosystem (school), assessment and roll-out beyond panel, iteratively finetuned market-ready product
Open Innovation Processes
• Exploitation: providers looking to exploit their fibre technology (moderate success) Cloudfriends was able to license its technology (success outside LL) provider wanted to sell solution to public organization (no success)
• Exploration: utilizers get user feedback & lessons from technical integration (success) providers get usage data (success) & look for ‘killer app’ (no success) enabler is looking for new solutions for policy goals (moderate success)
• Retention: presentations and publications by researchers, providers & enablers (success) predictive model extracted from user loggings (success)
iteratively finetuned Living Lab methodology (success)
Lessons learned
•Living Labs are open innovation networks involving different actors with different goals and motives
•A thematical focus fosters knowledge transfers and goal allignment between stakeholders with different roles
•Infrastructure by itself is not enough to attract utilizers
•Kickstart Living Lab with ‘internal’ cases
•Infrastructure and local embeddedness facilitate community-building
•‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ or limits to open innovation
Dimitri.Schuurman@iMinds.be
@DimiSchuurman
Senior Researcher iMinds - MICT
Schuurman et al. (2013). Living Labs as innovation systems fostering open and user innovation: lessons learned from the LeYLab Living Lab. TIM Review
November, special issue on Living Labs, forthcoming.
Schuurman et al. (2013). Living Labs as open innovation systems for knowledge exchange: solutions for sustainable innovation development. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research (IJBIR),
forthcoming.