A few takeaways on open innovation

Living labs are an example of open innovation. However, as was suggested in the previous post, their theoretical conceptualisation leaves something to be desired, and there are no clear guidelines that a living lab can follow to boost its chances of success. In order to improve my understanding of what our living lab should look like, I did some reading on the concept of open innovation. Specifically I read a few chapters from a book edited by Henry Chesbrouch, Wim Vanhaverbeke and Joel West.

Below you’ll find a few takeaways from what I read.

Takeaway #1: A project should be open to external ideas, but not just occasionally – external input should be accorded a key role in the development of an idea. Consequently, potential users and stakeholders should be engaged and consulted from the beginning.

Takeaway #2: An open innovation approach can allow projects to find their niche and the best ways of engaging an audience and create a user base. Drawing on other peoples’ experience and practices, one can identify blindspots in one’s thinking and overall perception of the situation.

Takeaway #3: Open innovation is useful when there is a broad dispersal of relevant knowledge and no single agent can achieve his/her goals individually.

Takeaway #4: While a confluence of values, professional interests and enthusiasm is important for a project, its long-term sustainability depends on the incentives and motivations that will keep people involved.

Takeaway #5: Relinquishing some level of control over the direction of the project and letting others help guide it is crucial for ensuring that the result is something that the relevant parties find useful and are willing to continue using.

While none of the above takeaways are particularly original, they do emphasise the importance of collaboratively articulating the goals of a project, and understanding the needs the project is expected to meet. That is to say, the creation of a successful living lab hinges on deftly marshalling and engaging a heterogeneous group of potential contributors and users. In our case, this seems crucial. After all, the overall goal is the creation of an online platform that would improve the interaction between a diverse group of users with a diverse group of agricultural advisers.

Best,

Emils

Is there such a thing as a living lab?

Following on from the previous entry on living labs, I would like to focus on the different uses and understandings of this concept. In particular, while reading up on this subject I was intrigued by the possibility that in academic usage the term living lab is applied to a rather diverse range of practices and phenomena that do not necessarily form a coherent and well-defined set.

In their article Living Labs: arbiters of mid- and ground-level innovation, Almirall and Warenham suggest that living labs can be seen as a response to the “inability of European nations to transform their research leadership into commercial successes in the marketplace” and offer a number of characteristics that living labs should or do manifest. According to the authors, living labs are collaborative projects that involve users in the innovation process. They may involve cooperation among a diverse range of actors. Furthermore, the authors even go so far as to say that living labs are “infrastructures that surface tacit, experiential and domain-based knowledge” or “explorative processes in real-life environments”.

While the above characterisations are certainly suggestive, the are also somewhat open-ended. Indeed, this is the line of arguments put forward by Schuurman, de Marez and Ballon in their review of the literature about living labs. 

The paper argues that living labs feature much more prominently in publications authored by European authors, generally focus on a small number of case studies and are methodologically diverse. Living labs are defined rather loosely and assumed to be examples of open innovation that focus on exploration.

Our main conclusion is that in terms of methodology and user characteristics, the Living Labs literature is rather silent and positions Living Labs too much as an ‘everything is possible’ concept that resembles an empty box, in the sense that you can put whatever methodology or research approach inside.

This is not meant to be a criticism of the concept, and the authors are quick to note that the practice of living labs is quite developed. Their conceptualisation, however, has some way to go.

Best,

Emils

What is a living lab?

I must admit that prior to joining the BSC team I had never come across living labs. What is more, the working definition I was provided with did not really mesh with my understanding of what a laboratory was.

To assuage my concerns and get a good handle on one of the key concepts in WP3 of AgriLink, I decided to do some digging. I started with Wikipedia, as you do, and according to Wikipedia, living labs are user-centered, open-innovation ecosystems integrating concurrent research and innovation processes.

Quite a mouthful, isn’t it?

Even though it may appear daunting at first, the definition actually gives you a good sense of the key elements that make living labs a distinct form of innovation and research. “User-centred” refers to the emphasis on usability and the needs of users. “Open-innovation” refers to a flow and exchange of ideas that ignores institutional or disciplinary boundaries, emphasising openness and cooperation. Consequently, it would be reasonable to assume that living labs can be seen as a platform for testing and refining ideas and innovations in a real-life setting, whereby the relevant stakeholders and users can collaboratively determine the feasibility and potential of a product or service.

In conclusion, in the context of living labs, the idea of a laboratory is used somewhat loosely. Indeed, the emphasis on openness seems ill at ease with the controlled environment of a laboratory and the closed system that is an experiment. However, seeing as how the ultimate goal is innovation, the mingling of diverse points of view in a real-world setting is crucial for identifying each other’s blind spots and establishing to everyone’s satisfaction that the product or service in question has a potential user base. 

Best,

Emils

AgriLink WP3 Training Event

I attended a two-day AgriLink training event held in Leuven, Belgium. The purpose of the event was to provide the training required to successfully develop a Living Lab. In particular, the focus was on facilitators and monitors of the Living Labs, who were encouraged to share their progress, practices, experiences and approaches.

The event was attended by all Living Lab teams. A total of six Living Labs will be developed as part of the AgrilLink project. Each Living Lab will be in a different country (Norway, Latvia, Italy, Romania, Spain, Netherlands) and focus on a different aspect of agriculture.

A number of practical techniques were introduced at the event. The participants were taught different ways of engaging partners and stakeholders in a collaborative process of articulating the aims of the Living Lab. What is more, facilitators and monitors were encouraged to reflect on their respective roles in the Living Lab process.

My impression was that the guidelines as regards the division of responsibilities between the monitor and facilitator were intentionally open-ended. There were two parallel sessions on the second day of the event. One was focused on the monitors, whereas the other one was dedicated to facilitators. A number of monitors expressed confusion as to what was expected of them. However, the presenters encouraged us to establish a contextually sensitive division of labour.

On the whole, I found the training event to be useful, even though some questions remain. The techniques we were introduced to as part of the event have the potential to streamline the process of developing Living Labs and tease out useful ideas from stakeholders.

Best,

Emils