|
The essential feature of a Living Lab (LL) is the consideration of users feedback and experience as an integral part of the testbed itself. European research has known the operational value of LLs methodology in three main areas so far:
|
| |
| 1. |
Bringing laboratory based technology testbeds into real-life, user focused validation environments; |
| |
| 2. |
Developing mobility services for citizens in a real-world early adopter community with existing and close to market technologies; |
| |
| 3. |
Studying the collaborative working environments of the future from a pan-European perspective. |
|
| |
|
In all cases, the main focus has been on a user centred, context sensitive, multi-site and multi-stakeholder co-design or co-creation process, supported by mutual trust and implying the joint consideration of policy, market, societal and technological aspect with equal weight, as shown in the following picture:
|
 |
| |
|
LLs refer to a setting that is created with specific targets and has a clear structure, but in the same time is dealing with the uncontrollable dynamics of daily life. Therefore, the targeted service will hold an open character, not that of a usability lab, but an environment in which technology is shaped out of specific social contexts and needs and where users are seen as co-producers.
Researchers within LLs are restricted to monitoring what is going on from the inside. On the other hand, researchers are part of a LL themselves and are able to intervene in order to contribute to a better implementation of technological innovations in social practices and deal with the unpredictable processes by reflecting on and consequently adjusting their initial methodology.
The problem faced by current LLs is that, although similar services and products are usually developed, a coherent framework for cooperation inside a LL is missing. Thus every new LL has to start (almost) from zero to develop support tools for the selected environments.
We identify five different phases of a LL configuration process:
|
| |
| a) |
contextualisation, meaning a prior exploration of the technological and social challenges implied by the technology or service under investigation. |
| |
| b) |
selection, meaning the identification of potential users or user groups, by means of non probabilistic or purposeful sampling. |
| |
| c) |
concretisation, meaning a thorough description of the current characteristics, everyday behaviour and perceptions of the selected test users regarding the research focus. |
| |
| d) |
implementation is actually the behavioural validation and operationally running test phase of the LL. from a user-oriented and ethnographic viewpoint. |
| |
| e) |
and feedback, consisting of two research steps: |
|
| |
| |
| • |
an ex post measurement based on the same techniques of the initial measurement, to check if there is any evolution in the users perception and attitude towards the introduced technology or service, to assess changes over time in everyday life in relation to technology use and to detect transitions of usage over time. |
| |
| • |
a set of technological recommendations from the analysis of data, gathered during the previous implementation phase. This outcome of the feedback phase will be used as the starting point for a new research cycle within the LL; in this way the iterative feature of research can be made operational. |
|
|