<div id="article">
<h2 id="article_title">
Are the Users Driving, and How Open is Open? Experiences
from Living Lab and User Driven Innovation projects
</h2>
<div id="article_author">
Kari-Hans Kommonen, <sup>1</sup> Andrea Botero
<sup>2</sup>
</div>
<p>
<sup>1</sup> Media Lab, Department of Media,Aalto University, Finland
(kari-hans.kommonen@aalto.fi)
</p>
<p>
<sup>2</sup> School of Arts, Design and
Architecture, Aalto University, Finland (andrea.botero@aalto.fi)
</p>
<p>
As the number of Living Labs has grown to the hundreds,
<sup>1</sup> there are almost as many definitions for
what the concept Living Lab means (Almirall, 2008;
Følstad, 2008; Orava, 2009). Central to the
"ideal" concept of Living Lab is the opportunity to
develop a more proactive role for users and user
communities in driving developments and to do it in open
ways <sup>2</sup> We consider this definition by
Feurstein et al. as fairly representative of many current
initiatives:
</p>
<blockquote>
"[Living Lab] is a systemic innovation approach in which
all stakeholders in a product, service or application
participate directly in the development process. It
refers to a research and development (R&D)
methodology in which innovations are created and
validated collaboratively in multi-contextual, empirical
real-world environments." (Feurstein, Hesmer, Hribernik,
Thoben, & Schumacher, 2008)
</blockquote>
<p>
However, based on our experience, both the "ideal" of
Living lab as well as the theoretical descriptions
represent exactly that: an ideal that has not yet been
realized in practice.
</p>
<p>
To proceed towards the ideal, we believe it would be
beneficial for those involved in Living Lab activities to
make a clearer distinction between <em>user
involvement</em> and <em>user driven innovation</em>.
This would make it possible to develop approaches to
further both of these activities better. In addition,
there seems to be a conflict between <em>two meanings of
open innovation</em> that we believe Living Labs need to
address consistently.
</p>
<p>
To elaborate this argument, our article reflects on the
experiences of three projects in Helsinki, Finland, that
we have participated in and that have aimed to develop
organic connections between technology development and
local communities of people. We will discuss these
projects to evaluate and summarize some of the
experiences, in the light of the role that communities
play and could play in innovation processes and
technology co-creation.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Setting the stage
</h3>
<p>
Over the past decade, our research group<sup>3</sup> has
initiated several projects to find ways to facilitate how
people could influence the development of tools, systems
and services for their own digital practices. Because of
this interest, we have also been part of several
initiatives that aimed to develop the Living Lab approach
in Helsinki. While both our own research agenda and the
Living Lab approach share many aims and characteristics,
the approaches have also some differences. It is also
worth noting that while the three projects presented here
had different aims, they all shared a basic premise: the
vision that new technology could and should be developed
in close collaboration with people.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Helsinki Living Lab (HLL)
</h3>
<p>
The Helsinki Living Lab (HLL) project (2007-2008) had the
objective to develop user-driven innovation know-how in
the Arabianranta region, the district where our
university is located. The strategy followed was of
involving close to 20 different actors (from universities
to small companies and resident communities) in concrete
cases that experiment with Living Lab approaches to
innovation and design. The ultimate aim was to develop a
service concept based on the experiences. The project was
initiated by the local development agency (Art and Design
City Oy) with funding from the Finnish Funding Agency for
Technology and Innovation (Tekes). <sup>4</sup> Our role
in the project was to contribute to the development of
the Living Lab concept in this context and to its working
methods. Within some of the cases, we developed and
experimented with different tools and means to approach
Arabianranta residents and stakeholders as co-designers.
</p>
<p>
One case that we worked with illuminates some of the
contradictions we want to bring forth particularly well.
In this case, we developed a set of activities for
collaboratively mapping everyday practices (Botero,
Naukkarinen, & Saad-Sulonen, 2008). The work helped
to understand how a specific product, at beta stage in
that moment, related to the current everyday practices of
the users, and specifically aimed to envision new
features and development directions for the product;
something both we and the users involved, believed would
be highly valuable for the enterprise we worked with,
according to the presumed mission of the Living Lab.
</p>
<p>
However, during the course of the project it became
evident that the company involved was first and foremost
interested in "user testing" specific product features.
While they thought the results of our work with users
were interesting, they were not planning to or even
prepared to consider more far-reaching propositions.
There was no way for the resulting insights to be
incorporated in further product iterations and no
particular provision in the company's development process
for responding in an agile way to even the minor
development ideas that resulted. Furthermore, as the work
was done under strict non-disclosure agreements, the
results we have been able to publish and share represent
only a small part of what could have been more generally
useful. As the originating company did not have a
compatible interest, and as the results could not be
shared with any other actor that might have an interest
to realize them, most of the ideas and insights that the
users created for new products or features, and more
importantly the related practices that were identified
(the "user innovations"), did not result in any new
products or business opportunities for the company, nor
in any practical benefits for the participating "user
innovators".
</p>
<p>
As a result of the whole project, a concept for the
Helsinki Living Lab was presented<sup>5</sup> and
elaborated. In general terms, it can be said that this
has strengthened the potential of the area as a "Living
Lab". In fact, Arabianranta continues to be marketed as
such, but just what really that means in practice is far
from clear, not only from the point of view of the
participating institutions, but also as is evident in the
mixed feelings that have arisen in the local community.
<sup>6</sup>
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
User Driven Open Innovation Booster (UDOI)
</h3>
<p>
After the experiences with the HLL project, we were part
of a larger consortium project called User Driven Open
Innovation Booster (UDOI) (2008-2010), aimed at bringing
together (around 15) businesses and research institutions
to develop, pilot and deploy service innovations in
collaboration with user communities. This time, user
collaborations were not limited to Arabianranta.
</p>
<p>
Initially the project had an ambitious goal of developing
a networked Living Lab system and developing the core
competences for User Driven Innovation for supporting
R&D activities in Finland; as this was a core part of
a new scheme for developing R&D activities with
private and public funding called Tivit. <sup>7</sup>
After a long design and planning process in which we
actively participated that created a plan that the
participating actors considered feasible, the project
direction was changed. This was mostly due to a lack of
sufficient industrial interest to participate in the
funding, which resulted in a drastic budget cut (around
75% from the original 4.3 MEUR, but still with 13
partners). The project's goals were scaled down and
focused away from Living Lab development. Instead,
funders insisted that the activities should support
targeted user involvement, to produce direct input for
selected cases provided by participant companies in the
larger Flexible Services research consortium.
</p>
<p>
From the point of view of our research interests, the
refocusing changed the nature of the project completely,
and effectively stripped the project of realistic
opportunities to research and develop user driven
innovation activities in practice. There was no space for
investing in building more long-term partnerships with
user communities, nor for exploring ideas that would come
from sources different from those already
pre-established. We continued facilitating user
involvement in three cases (e.g. Naukkarinen, Sutela,
Botero, & Kommonen, 2009; Naukkarinen, Sutela,
Botero, & Hyyppä, 2010) and reflected on user
involvement in innovation in general (e.g.: Botero,
Vihavainen, & Karhu, 2009; Botero, Karhu, Vihavainen
2012). However, the user "driven" dimensions of the whole
endeavour became very thin.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Emerging Digital Practices of Communities (ADIK)
</h3>
<p>
In contrast to the previous two projects, the Emerging
Digital Practices of Communities (ADIK)<sup>8</sup>
project (2004-2007) was initiated by our research group,
with mostly public funding, but also with support from
two large companies.<sup>9</sup> It studied different
ways in which new digital tools give room to the
emergence of new practices and, conversely, how people
through their practices transform and complement these
new tools. Our approach was to engage in collaborative
work with communities of people that could have practices
that in our judgement could, if facilitated with new
technology, evolve to include new features that would
take advantage of some digital capabilities. <sup>10</sup>
</p>
<p>
From the point of view of User Driven Innovation, one of
the communities we worked with, an association of Active
Seniors, is especially interesting. They are a community
that has been formed specifically for the purpose of
creating a social innovation: a collective housing
arrangement and an alternative way of growing old
together that the seniors called Loppukiri<sup>11</sup>
(Botero & Kommonen, 2009a, 2009b; Botero &
Hyysalo, forthcoming, Dahlström & Minkkinen,
2009). This background meant that they were positively
predisposed to a design collaboration, as they had
already embarked on a long term design mission regarding
the organization of their own future lives, and were well
prepared and interested to consider also the design of
the technological circumstances within that new future
lifestyle.
</p>
<p>
During several years of the collaboration (which in fact
started already before the ADIK project, in 2002), we
explored their current and possible future practices
through many types of activities and prototypes, and
finally as one of the results, developed a prototype
information system that the seniors called the "Everyday
Life Management System" of their house. This system was
in effect co-designed with the seniors and mostly
implemented by our team. It has been put into use in the
community as a way to facilitate some of their novel
practices, e.g. the organization of the process of
preparing their common daily meals and dealing with the
shared spaces (Botero & Kommonen, 2009b; Botero &
Hyysalo, forthcoming) since they have now moved into
their common housing arrangement.
</p>
<p>
We believe that this latter case sheds light on the
dynamics of new forms of social collectivity, which
challenge our established modes of politics and tradition
(Maffesoli, 1996) and the possibilities of organizing
collaborative production activities that might more
accurately represent real sites of collective innovation.
Through their activities, this community is experimenting
and creating models that can be appropriated and further
developed by other communities and Finnish society in
general. <sup>12</sup>
</p>
<p>
As this project was already completed when we
participated in the Living Lab projects presented
earlier, we attempted to bring these communities and the
community and practice driven approaches utilized in this
project also into the other two projects. Unfortunately,
we were not successful in that, for a variety of reasons,
mostly because of the strong focus on producing results
specifically for the participating companies.
</p>
<p>
In spite of this, the initiative of the seniors,
Loppukiri, is often presented by the Living Lab
proponents as a prime example of Living Labs - a position
we agree with - but, ironically, it has been developed
completely outside of any "Living Lab" projects and
without any Living Lab funding. Equally sadly, despite
its strong appeal as an example of successful Living Lab
activity, it appears that none of the various current
Living Lab funding opportunities would offer any
instruments to support them.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Users - involved or driving?
</h3>
<p>
A key idea in Living Labs, which we characterize as
<em>user involvement</em>, seems to be to connect
technology developers to communities in order to
introduce, in some way or another, the realism of
everyday life into the development process. This can
happen in various ways - for example through user
testing, ideation, user centered design - depending on
the ability of the Living Lab customer, the company, to
incorporate such contributions into their product
development process. Our experiences from HLL and UDOI
are examples of how these types of "Living Lab"
initiatives were geared towards organizing and
streamlining user involvement activities for a narrow
product development process, which also resonated well
with the expectations of most of the participating
enterprises.
</p>
<p>
These involvements are thus <em>producer driven</em>; a
company defines the interest and the aims, users are
involved as informants and recruited for the purpose, and
the process and its results are closed from external
participants. This development is congruent with what in
marketing and management is usually referred to as
co-creation and customer centric approaches (e.g.:
Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). A focus on user
involvement takes advantage of and links Living Labs to
the extensive body of knowledge developed around users as
important sources of innovation (von Hippel 1988, 2005).
Furthermore, Living labs have been able to tap into the
experiences of the user-centered design movement (as
developed in fields like Human Computer Interaction) and
the associated breadth of methods for user studies. In
this kind of <em>producer driven user involvement</em>
the challenge for a Living Lab seems to be more about
their ability to develop and market these types of
services to companies and to increase the participant
companies' capacities to take advantage of user
involvement. This is an important goal and a beneficial
activity in the sense that it may increase the quality
and fit of industrial products. However, such harvesting
of product related input from people does not necessarily
further user community-based innovation.
</p>
<p>
In contrast, the more ambitious ideal of Living Labs, as
environments for <em>systemic user driven innovation and
co-creation</em> appears to require a different set of
starting conditions. Unfortunately, a Living Lab where
communities are also empowered and not simply used as a
resource does not seem to be an easy extension of user
involvement activities. This might be because having new
actors "driving" the agenda does not necessarily fit
comfortably into the same circumstances. Communities, or
users and their interests, are not initiating or driving
developments in any Living Labs that we have experience
of, and while interesting experiments are taking place in
Cornellà (Colobrans, 2010), Malmö
(Björgvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren, 2010, 2012) and
Milano (Cantou, Corubolo, Simeone, 2012), we are not
aware of any systematic user driven approach of creating
innovations that is currently in use in Living Labs with
effective results or useful outputs.
</p>
<p>
There are many factors influencing this; we believe four
reasons are particularly salient:
</p>
<ul>
<li>the main interests driving the development of Living
Labs are not focused on seeking and facilitating
innovations that interest people as much as innovations
that interest companies;
</li>
<li>within their practices and processes, enterprises
typically have no suitable place for the entry of
external innovations (e.g. a radical proposal initiated
by a user community) into the product and business
development cycle; enterprises are not looking for such
input and have generally no mechanism to make use of
something that does not fit as an improvement into an
already existing product line;
</li>
<li>Living Lab projects invest most of their funds into
organizing services for companies and extremely little -
if any - into research and development of ways to
discover and facilitate innovation by users and
communities (actors that are not organized as a firm);
and finally:
</li>
<li>most participating actors simply do not perceive or
worry about a distinction between user involvement and
user driven activities - for many, any means of including
the user in the innovation process justifies calling it
"user driven".
</li>
</ul>
<p>
In reality, this lack of support and interest for the
more radical aspects of a Living Lab approach does not
stop true user driven innovation from taking place, as
for example von Hippel describes (2005) and Loppukiri
attests to. These in fact are spontaneously initiated by
people who have strong interests to further developments
that are important to them.
</p>
<p>
Unfortunately for communities andsociety, as this
activity does not fit into the framings, agendas and
mechanisms of the current institutional support systems,
such as Living Labs, these communities and this latter
type of innovation cannot benefit from the significant
resourcing <sup>13</sup> that is designated specifically
for this purpose by society. Hence, it could be a
worthwhile proposition for a new generation of Living
Labs to consider opening new initiatives to find means to
support developments that have true user driven origins.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Open - but how open?
</h3>
<p>
One obstacle to building a more collaborative
infrastructure in Living Lab settings, in the contexts we
are aware of, is the confusion related to the degree of
openness of the activities. This we attribute to a
problem of terminology. While most Living Labs are
described as <em>open innovation</em> environments, this
term is very ambiguous and has a specific meaning for the
business management community that might differ from an
intuitive reading of it by those not of that community.
For example, to Henry Chesbrough, whose writings have
been central in defining and popularizing the concept,
Open Innovation is:
</p>
<blockquote>
"… the use of purposive inflows and outflows of
knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand
the markets for external use of innovation, respectively.
[This paradigm] assumes that firms can and should use
external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal
and external paths to market, as they look to advance
their technology." (Chesbrough, 2006a)
</blockquote>
<p>
According to this view of Open Innovation (OI) the
inflows and outflows of innovation are expected to happen
through the trading of intellectual property (IP) between
organizations. Because of this, an OI approach actually
increases the incentive for companies to gather IP and
protect it by methods such as patenting, in order to make
it as valuable as possible for sale or trade when it is
not used being internally (Chesbrough, 2006b). The word
"open" is thus used to contrast this approach with a
"closed" one where a company creates all the knowledge it
requires for innovation by itself without relying on
outsiders, and respectively holds on to its own
inventions and does not try to sell them to others
(Botero, Karhu, Vihavainen 2012). Openness here does not
mean that the protected innovations are available to
anyone for free; instead, they are available to be
purchased or licensed by selected, agreeable parties, at
a cost. The open innovation approach encourages firms to
build networks where firms support each other with
intellectual property that they can license and mobilize
in their products. This, we suggest, could be called
<em>commercial open innovation.</em>
</p>
<p>
Another, perhaps for most people more intuitive,
understanding of the concept of open innovation leads one
to link it to the type of openness that is promoted by
other "open" initiatives, such as <em>open source</em>,
<em>open access</em>, <em>open culture</em>, <em>open
data</em> or <em>open content</em>, where the emphasis is
on free revealing and free sharing (c.f. von Hippel,
2005; Baldwin & von Hippel, 2009). This understanding
of openness means that the essential information
concerning the innovation is available to anyone
interested in it, freely without discrimination and at no
cost, and they are able to use it as they see fit. This
has been called <em>open collaborative innovation</em> by
Baldwin and von Hippel (2009). We propose that to
highlight the contrast between commercial "open
innovation" and innovation where everything is publicly
and freely available, a useful term could be <em>public
open innovation</em>.
</p>
<p>
This confusion of terms makes it difficult for various
actors to have a shared understanding of and expectations
for Living Lab activities. In many cases people and other
actors who are engaged or recruited to collaborate with
Living Labs may believe that they are contributing to a
greater common good with their efforts (cf. the dilemma
we described in the Helsinki Living Lab case). However,
eventually they may find that they are working within a
context where a company will own the innovations they
helped to create; and in the worst case, they may not
even get access to the innovations if the company fails
to create usable, affordable and sustainable products
from the work. Even in the case where a company will
produce an solution, an ensuing design improvement cycle
by several actors would be more beneficial for the
further rapid evolution of the solution (cf. Hyysalo,
2007; von Hippel, 1988, 2005). Hence, the current modes
of operation that severely restrict access to the
innovations are not in the best interest of the user
innovators.
</p>
<p>
User involvement as described above is not easy or cheap.
Although this aspect is not often described in the
publications that document such cases, researchers that
aim to involve people in "user studies" know that it is
not at all trivial to find, recruit and motivate people
to participate in research and development, as doing so
typically requires them to devote time, and usually
without any meaningful compensation. In addition, the
benefits of involvement might not be clear at the onset;
as well the initial expectations may not be met during
longer term involvements further making future
recruitments more difficult.
</p>
<p>
Equally, this kind of work takes a lot of time and effort
from the organizations that get involved in the.. If the
substantial effort of a first experimental activity does
not produce meaningful results, the involved actors,
whether they are so called "users" or organizations, are
not easily persuaded to participate again. Hence,
unproductive experiments deplete the resource base and
budding interest quickly. This is a difficult problem for
current Living Labs to solve. How to ensure the creation
of sufficient benefits for all participants, so that the
processes can become sustainable and actually grow?
</p>
<p>
We suggest that especially when the role of users'
efforts and contributions is significant, they should be
guaranteed upfront and in explicit terms that the process
will be governed by open and shared innovation models
that allow them or anyone else to proceed with developing
the innovations based on their own work. This will become
a significant issue if Living Labs are to become
successful in developing true User Driven Innovation
activities. People will invest a lot of time and effort
in R&D only if they know they have the opportunity to
work with those kinds of partners that can help them to
reach concrete results.
</p>
<p>
At the same time, as we have noted earlier, innovation by
user communities exists and thrives, but most enterprises
are not generally able to join with and make use of it.
Thus, for the ideal of the Living Labs to become reality,
enterprises will need to evolve and specifically develop
their sensitivity and capabilities to embrace such
external innovation.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Conclusions
</h3>
<p>
In one of our interviews with the Active Seniors, an
individual expressed their position and motivation for
being involved in development activities in a nutshell by
saying that instead of being an object of research, they
wanted to be an "actor", shaping their own life. As
contemporary society is moving forward from the
industrial era of mass production towards mass
customization and individually tailorable products and
systems, this potential for people to be empowered actors
of their own lives is growing. The emerging technology
and the global information environment are all compatible
with the development of vibrant user driven innovation
phenomena. Even the large funding agencies, such as the
European Commission, have recognized the potential of the
ideal, and have jumped onto the Living Lab bandwagon as
the way to transform innovation processes towards user
driven directions.
</p>
<p>
However, as the current Living Lab activities are
typically designed to satisfy the perceived needs of
industry as opposed to the needs of people, they are, by
design, constrained to remain mechanisms simply for "user
involvement". Also, their generally closed participation
and their Intellectual Propety Regime (IPR) strategies
are not fair or productive from the users'
perspective--giving their innovations into the Living Lab
may mean contributing these to the IPR of a participating
company that is not able or willing to turn these into
useful solutions for the innovators, and which in turn
may exclude the competition and evolution in the design
space essential to satisfying user needs.
</p>
<p>
We propose that in order to realize the ideal of a "user
driven open innovation ecosystem", next generation Living
Lab activities should shift their focus and priorities
from how to realize the interest of companies to how to
realize the interest of the users. Instead of being only
mechanisms for involving users in <em>producer driven
product development</em>, "Living Lab V2.0" could also
become <em>innovation accelerators for users and their
communities</em> - institutions that have mechanisms in
place that support and facilitate motivated and
innovative people to develop their innovations rapidly
with peer designers, user communities and interested
enterprises.
</p>
<p>
This requires that next generation Living Lab activities
should:
</p>
<ul>
<li>develop instruments that fund activities that are
initiated and driven by strong user interests, without
requiring them to be tied to specific corporate interest
or sponsorship
</li>
<li>develop methods, practices and tools as well as
shareable resources (such as open source software
infrastructure and modules, organized cumulative research
data, and open data resources) to support these types of
activities, e.g. based on already existing models
provided by many online and offline communities
</li>
<li>be guaranteed to operate based on principles of
public open innovation and free revealing of the results
of user-developer collaborations - both knowledge and
software - and be open for the participation of any
actors that may be able to move the innovations forward
into concrete solutions.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
The type of work we have done in the projects with
communities (e.g. ADIK with the Active Seniors), taking
their own practices and their future potential as
starting points, seems to offer a fruitful direction for
innovative technology development, and could also be a
basis for systemic user driven initiatives. We believe
that such an approach, if operated according to
principles of public open innovation, would create
attractive knowledge and collaboration initiatives and
would also create commercial opportunities that are more
compatible with growing trends of openness for companies.
The support from Living Labs should be directed to those
companies that are ready to embrace external innovation
and join open collaborative innovation processes.
</p>
<p>
Organizations funding Living Lab developments have
typically been from various levels of government,
pursuing a strong interest in quickly developing
practical support for businesses. Thus, the funding has
been directed to implementation of activities as opposed
to research and development. However, as there are no
working examples of how to accomplish the goals in a
systemic fashion, we believe that in addition to
launching new implementation projects that proclaim the
realization of the ideal, there is also a need to engage
in critical and focused research into the phenomena of
user innovation and unrealized user interests, as well as
in the development of the methods, tools and practices
that genuine "user driven open innovation processes"
would require. In this way ideals could be turned into
reality. A real user driven innovation ecosystem could
have many significant societal benefits making for a very
worthwhile investment.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Acknowledgements
</h3>
<p>
We want to thank all the user communities involved
for their collaboration and our partners and colleagues
at Aalto University.
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
Footnotes
</h3>
<p>
<sup>1</sup> The European network of Living Labs alone
list around 250 Living Labs on their site
http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/. There are also similar
developments in China and other parts of Asia.
</p>
<p>
<sup>2</sup> For example the current definition in
Wikipedia mentions both "user empowerment" and "open
environment" as qualities of the Living lab approach
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_lab). Similar
rhetoric is found in the European Commission report
"Advancing and applying Living Lab methodologies. An
update on Living Labs for user-driven open innovation in
the ICT domain." (2010)
(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/livinglabs/docs/pdf/newwebpdf/living-lab-brochure2010_en.pdf)
</p>
<p>
<sup>3</sup> The Arki research group in the Media Lab of
the Aalto University School of Arts, Design and
Architecture studies the digitalization of everyday life;
tries to make sense of the positive and negative
potential that is created;, and attempts to develop
design approaches to further the realization of the
positive opportunities in society. See
http://arki.mlog.taik.fi
</p>
<p>
<sup>4</sup> Tekes is the main public funding
organisation for research, development and innovation in
Finland, financed by the Ministry of Employment and the
Economy. See http://www.tekes.fi/en
</p>
<p>
<sup>5</sup> In particular through the initiative of
Helsinki Living Lab promoted by Forum Virium, ADC Oy and
the regional development office of Helsinki. Further
information on this development can be followed in the
website. http://www.helsinkilivinglab.fi
</p>
<p>
<sup>6</sup> For an overview of how the area is presented
as a Living Lab see:
http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/helsinki.html To review some
earlier mixed feelings of the local community related to
their neighborhood as a "test bed" see e.g. Kangasoja
(2007).
</p>
<p>
<sup>7</sup> Tivit Oy is a company set up by Finnish
industry and research institutions to develop industry
driven R&D with specifically allocated public funding
from Tekes; see: http://www.tivit.fi/en/ . UDOI Booster
project: http://www.flexibleservices.fi/en/node/24
</p>
<p>
<sup>8</sup> The acronym derives from the Finnish name of
the project. Further information about it can be accessed
at
https://reseda.taik.fi/Taik/jsp/taik/Research.jsp?id=28237
</p>
<p>
<sup>9</sup> Like the two other projects, ADIK was funded
by Tekes, the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation, with support from Nokia and Elisa.
</p>
<p>
<sup>10</sup> The approach is largely inspired by the
Scandinavian Participatory Design experience (See e.g
Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991)
</p>
<p>
<sup>11</sup> Loppukiri means "last spurt" in English..
In practice it means a co-housing arrangement with 58
small flats and large shared facilities where inhabitants
aim at growing together old. A video describing our
collaboration with Loppukiri can be found at
http://vimeo.com/15256102
</p>
<p>
<sup>12</sup> As a matter of fact there are already more
than 6 other groups in the country engaged in planning,
developing and replicating some of the ideas developed by
the seniors. For more information about their project
visit: http://www.loppukiri.fi/yhteystiedot.htm
</p>
<p>
<sup>13</sup> According to our rough estimate, the yearly
funding available for Living Lab activities in the world
runs in the tens of millions of Euros (in August 2012).
</p>
<h3 class="article_subhead">
References
</h3>
<div class="reference">
Almirall, E. (2008). Living Labs and Open Innovation:
Roles and Applicability. <cite>The Electronic Journal for
Virtual Organizations and Networks.</cite> Volume 10,
"Special Issue on Living Labs". Retrieved from
http://www.ve-forum.org/Projects/264/Issues/eJOV%20Special%20Issue%20on%20Living%20Labs%202008/eJOV10_SPILL3_Almirall_Living%20Labs%20and%20open%20Innovation.pdf
</div>
<div class="reference">
Baldwin, C. Y., & Von Hippel, E. A. (2009). Modeling a
Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open
Collaborative Innovation. Harvard Business School Finance
Working Paper No. 10-038; MIT Sloan Research Paper No.
4764-09 . Available at SSRN:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1502864 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1502864
</div>
<div class="reference">
Botero, A., & Hyysalo S (Forthcoming 2013) Aging
together: steps towards evolutionary co-design in
everyday practices. <cite>CoDesign: International Journal
of CoCreation in Design and the Arts</cite>, 9(0), 1-18.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Botero, A., Naukkarinen, A., & Saad-Sulonen, J. (2008).
Mapping social practices through collaborative exercises
and visualizations. In <cite>Proceedings of the 5th
Nordic Conference on Human-Computer interaction: Building
Bridges (Lund, Sweden, October 20 - 22, 2008). NordiCHI
'08, vol. 358</cite>. ACM, New York, NY, 419-422.
DOI=http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1463160.1463209
</div>
<div class="reference">
Botero, A., & Kommonen, K.-H. (2009a). Coordinating
Everyday Life: The Design of Practices and Tools in the
"Life Project" of a Group of Active Seniors. In
<cite>Proceedings of COST 298 Conference: The Good, the
Bad and the Challenging</cite>. (pp. 736-745). Slovenia:
ABS-Center.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Botero, A., & Kommonen, K.-H. (2009b). Aspects of social
media design and innovation in a project for aging
together. In C. Mueller & M. Lewkowicz (Eds.),
<cite>Enhancing Interaction Spaces by Social Media for
the Elderly, International reports on
socio-informatics</cite> (Vol. 6, pp. 21-34). Bonn,
Germany: IISI - International Institute for
Socio-Informatics.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Botero, A., Vihavainen, S., & Karhu, K. (2009). From
closed to open to what? An exploration on community
innovation principles. In <cite>Proceedings of the 13th
International MindTrek Conference: Everyday Life in the
Ubiquitous Era</cite> (pp. 198-202). Presented at the
Mindtrek, Tampere, Finland: ACM / Mindtrek.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2010)
Participatory design and "democratizing innovation" in
<cite>Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference
2010 Participation the Challenge</cite>. ACM.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012):
Agonistic participatory design: working with marginalised
social movements. <cite>CoDesign: International Journal
of CoCreation in Design and the Arts</cite>, 8:2-3,
127-144
</div>
<div class="reference">
Cantou D., Corubolo M., & Simeone G., (2012) A Community
Centered Design approach to developing service prototypes
in <cite>Proceedings of the ServDes 2012
Conference</cite>. Presentes at ServDes, Espoo Finland.
SDN
</div>
<div class="reference">
Chesbrough, H. (2006a). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm
for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In H.
Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), <cite>Open
Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm</cite>. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-929072-5.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Chesbrough, H. (2006b). <cite>Open Business Models: How
to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape.</cite> Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Colobrans, J. (2010, February). De la triple
hélice a la innovación social:
¿Qué está ocurriendo en el citilab
de Cornellà? <cite>La Factoría</cite>,
(45-46). Retrieved from
http://www.revistalafactoria.eu/articulo.php?id=520
</div>
<div class="reference">
Dahlström, M., & Minkkinen, S. (2009).
<cite>Loppukiri. Vaihtoehtoista asumista
seniori-iässä</cite> <cite>(Loppukiri.
Alternative living in senior age</cite>). Helsinki,
Finland: WSOY. ISBN 978-951-0-34906-9
</div>
<div class="reference">
Følstad, A. (2008). Living Labs for Innovation and
Development of Information and Communication Technology:
A Literature Review. <cite>The Electronic Journal for
Virtual Organizations and Networks</cite>. Volume 10,
"Special Issue on Living Labs"<cite>.</cite> Retrieved
from:
http://www.ve-forum.org/Projects/264/Issues/eJOV%20Special%20Issue%20on%20Living%20Labs%202008/eJOV10_SPILL7_Folstad_Living%20Labs%20for%20Innovation%20and%20Development.pdf
</div>
<div class="reference">
Feurstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben,
K.-D., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living Labs: A New
Development Strategy. In J. Schumacher & V-P. Niitamo:
<cite>European Living Labs: A new approach for human
centric regional innovation.</cite> Berlin:
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin. ISBN 978-3-86573-343-6
</div>
<div class="reference">
Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. Eds. (1991) Design at work:
cooperative design of computer systems. Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
</div>
<div class="reference">
Hyysalo, S. (2007). User innovation, design space, and
everyday practices: Rodeo Kayaking case revisited. In
<cite>Proceedings of the Nordic Consumer Policy Research
Conference</cite> (pp. 1542-1558). Helsinki: Nordic Forum
for Consumer Research.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Kangasoja, J. (2007). From virtual visions to everyday
services. Evolution of the Arabianranta local ICT model.
In J. Kangasoja & H. Schulman (Eds.),
<cite>Arabianrantaan! Uuden kaupungin maihinnousu.
Arabianranta-Rethinking Urban Living</cite> (pp.
142-157). Helsinki, Finland: City of Helsinki Urban
Facts.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Maffesoli, P. M. (1996). <cite>The Time of the
Tribes</cite> (1st ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Naukkarinen, A., Sutela, J., Botero, A., & Kommonen,
K.-H. (2009). Designing locative media for creative
misuse: learning from urban intervention. In
<cite>Proceedings of the 13th International MindTrek
Conference: Everyday Life in the Ubiquitous Era</cite>
(pp. 124-127). Tampere, Finland: ACM.
doi:10.1145/1621841.1621865
</div>
<div class="reference">
Naukkarinen, A., Sutela, J., Botero, A., & Hyyppä,
K. (2010). <cite>Augmenting the streets and aging
together - learning from everyday interventions</cite>.
UDOI Project. Retrieved from:
http://www.flexibleservices.fi/files/file/pdf/UDOI_everyday-3.pdf
</div>
<div class="reference">
Orava, J. (2009). <cite>Living Lab -toiminta Suomessa
(Living lab activities in Finland).</cite> Online
publications of the Regional Centre Programme 3/2009.
</div>
<div class="reference">
Retrieved from
http://www.innovaatioverkosto.fi/cgi-bin/webio-f?id=204&saitti=innovaatioverkosto
</div>
<div class="reference">
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). <cite>The future
of competition: Co-creating unique value with
customers</cite>. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
</div>
<div class="reference">
von Hippel, E. (1988). <cite>Sources of
Innovation.</cite> Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
</div>
<div class="reference">
von Hippel, E. (2005). <cite>Democratizing
innovation</cite>. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.
</div>
</div>