Living Lab: A Methodology between User‐Centred Design and Participatory Design

Abstract

AcknowledgmentsWe acknowledge the research support provided by Carlo Coppola and Mattia Mrvosevic. The usual disclaimers apply. Financial support from the Lombardy Region fund "Dote Ricercatori e della Dote Ricerca Applicata per lo sviluppo del capitale umano nel sistema universitario lombardo" is also gratefully acknowledged. 3 LIVING LAB: A METHODOLOGY BETWEEN USER-CENTRED DESIGN AND PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AbstractLiving Labs have received limited attention in the literature despite their diffusion throughout Europe and recent interest from policy makers. This limited attention is linked to the newness of the phenomenon, the high heterogeneity of cases and the consequent lack of definitions and acknowledged frameworks for scholarly analyses. In this work, we argue that the originality of the Living Lab phenomenon resides in the introduction of a new methodology.Using an analysis of the literature and case studies, we propose a new definition, position this methodology among other design methodologies and highlight its peculiarities. We underline the co-creative potentialities, the awareness of users and the real-life settings. Furthermore, our case-based research allows us to identify four different specifications for this methodology, and therefore four different types of Living Labs, based on the openness of the user involvement and the adopted platform technology.

Towards Third-Generation Living Lab Networks in Cities

“…As to platform as the first dimension, living labs are generally viewed as platforms for innovation (Almirall & Wareham, 2008;Anttiroiko, 2016;Dell´Era & Landoni, 2014;Habib et al, 2015). Ojasalo and Tähtinen (2016) argue that, in the context of cities, the owner of the innovation platform is usually a city, and the platform functions as an innovation vehicle between the city and external actors.…”

Untitled

“…As to platform as the first dimension, living labs are generally viewed as platforms for innovation (Almirall & Wareham, 2008;Anttiroiko, 2016;Dell´Era & Landoni, 2014; Habib et al, 2015). Ojasalo and Tähtinen (2016) argue that, in the context of cities, the owner of the innovation platform is usually a city, and the platform functions as an innovation vehicle between the city and external actors.…”

“…The platform dimension distinguishes between the city and the neighbourhood, building on the notion that cities or their parts are increasingly documented as platforms (Anttiroiko, 2016). A neighbourhood or a suburb could also refer to a smaller entity or unit within a city, such as a school, a hospital, a community house, or a geographical area such as a park.As to platform as the first dimension, living labs are generally viewed as platforms for innovation (Almirall & Wareham, 2008;Anttiroiko, 2016;Dell´Era & Landoni, 2014; Habib et al, 2015). Ojasalo and Tähtinen (2016) argue that, in the context of cities, the owner of the innovation platform is usually a city, and the platform functions as an innovation vehicle between the city and external actors.…”

User-driven innovation: scale development and validation

“…For instance, entrepreneurship emphasises lead users involvement and user feedback (Blank, 2013;von Hippel, 1986), marketing focuses on customer integration with co-creation (Alam, 2002), innovation literature investigates U.D.I. as a process (da Mota Pedrosa, 2012), and design studies present different methods for user participation in designing new products/services (Dell'Era & Landoni, 2014). Empirical research of U.D.I.…”