1 Introduction
1.1 Living labs and co-creation
Author | Definition/Categorisation | Definition |
---|---|---|
European Network of Living Labs- ENoLL, (2015) | Living lab definition | “Living Labs are defined as user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation1 approach integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings. In practice, Living Labs place the citizen at the centre of innovation, and have thus shown the ability to better mould the opportunities offered by new ICT concepts and solutions to the specific needs and aspirations of local contexts, cultures, and creativity potentials” |
Schuurman et al. [29] | Living lab typologies | Schuurman proposed four general living lab types: (1) American living labs (2) testbed-like living labs (3) living labs focused on intense user co-creation (4) living labs mainly as facilitators for multi-stakeholder collaboration and knowledge sharing |
Lander [20] | User involvement from a Design perspective | 1. User-centred design – users involved at testing stage: design for users) 2.Participatory design -users can be involved at both design and testing stage: design with users 3. Full-involvement – users involved at all stages: design by users. |
Leminen et al. [21] | User involvement relationships | Informant, Contributor Collaborator |
1.2 Aims and objectives
2 Search and selection
Author(s), Year | Country | Purpose/motivations of the living lab methods | Methods Described/Proposed methods |
---|---|---|---|
Angelini et al., (2016), Senior Living Lab: An Ecological Approach to Foster Social Innovation in an Ageing Society. | Switzerland | Co-creation of innovation promoting ageing well at home | ‘Ethnological approaches’ Community Based Participatory Research methods Focus groups World café Shadowing techniques |
van Geenhuizen, (2014), Living Labs, Concepts and Critical Factors, with Case Studies in Health Care. | Netherlands | Case 1 Provision of affordable ICT for home care and home fitness training, specifically adapted for Turkish community. | Community ‘needs analysis’ prior to the project. Use of in-group coach/trainer to gain trust. |
Case2 Provision of sensor technology (to Turkish community) to measure activities of daily living, need for support and to make combinations with other products and services, such as alarm systems. | Interviews with users about testing the ICT applications. Designing scenarios on future use with users. Users acting in focus groups. ‘Co-creation’ of specific applications’. | ||
Brankaert and den Ouden, (2017), The Design- Driven Living Lab: A New Approach to Exploring Solutions to Complex Societal Problems. | Netherlands | Evaluation of a design driven living lab approach to the implementation of Qwiek.up system. Identification of latent uses of the system, discover new perspective on the value proposition of the system | Life test (put the product in a care facility and let care professionals use it as they will). After-use description of experiences on evaluation forms (professionals). Focus groups (professionals). |
Pedell et al., (2016), Methods for Supporting Older Users in Communicating Their Emotions at Different Phases of a Living Lab Project. | Australia | Understand user emotions in the development of a prototype pendant alarm. | Proposal of an Emotion-led Design Toolkit across the three generic design phases (interviews, creation of animated scenarios, co-design workshop discussions, use of technology probes). |
Wang and Xing, (2014), Design Intelligent Service for Elderly People Using Living Lab Approach. | China | Proposal of a living lab methodology for service design mediated through ICT (To address scarcity of medical resources). | ICT mediated information gathering (e.g., wireless camera, smartphone for the elderly, online interviews). ICT data collection methods e.g., VR, 3D imitation, imitation video, feedback of data via ICT. Use of big database technology and big data processing methods. |
Pino et al., (2013), Contribution of the Living Lab Approach to the Development, Assessment, and Provision of Assistive Technologies, for Supporting Older People with Cognitive Disorders. | France | Focus on assistive technologies for supporting older adult with cognitive disorders. Understand needs of older people living with cognitive impairment. | (Iterative design process and continuous gathering of user feedback). Direct observations. Surveys/Questionnaires. Assistive Technology Assessment procedures (user-driven process to seek and evaluate assistive technologies). Interviews. Idea generation as plays (researchers act out the use of a given solution in format of the users and monitor verbal or non-verbal reactions). Organize testing sessions as recreational activities and gather feedback. |
Kopec, Nielek and Wierzbicki, (2018), Guidelines Towards Better Participation of Older Adults in Software Development and Processes Using a New SPIRAL Method and Participatory Approach. | Poland | Empowerment of older people to be involved in product development. Proposal of Spiral Method | (4-step participatory approach), 1.Lowering technology barrier Traditional computer courses and workshops, introductory courses 2. Direct involvement with tech Learning by doing using mobile devices and applications. 3. Intergenerational involvement with developers simulation of a whole design process, a design competition between teams (older people and young designers in direct co-operation) teamwork 4. Participant Empowerment Co-design contest (between older people co-operating with young designers) |
Andersen, Kanstrup and Yndigegn, (2018), Three Living Labs in Denmark: Challenges with Co-design and Implementation of Heath IT | Denmark, Portugal, and Austria | Case 1 Give and Take project information technology (reciprocal sharing of services and resources among older adults) | Dialogue Meetings and workshops to explore the concept of sharing, with older adults, municipalities and private partners. Setting up of a living lab (as a space for rehearsing the co-ordination practices). |
Case2 Evaluation of implementation of various assistive living technologies for elderly, chronically ill and handicapped in nursing homes | Dialogue meetings and workshops, Observations of formed communities, “small experiments” for exploration of technologies. Observation of use of installed technologies. Individual interviews and observations with staff, managers, municipality and residents. Co-design workshop (in one nursing home) | ||
Pino et al., (2015), Innovative Technology-Based Healthcare and Support Services for Older adults: How and Why Industrial Initiatives Convert to the Living Lab Approach | France | To ensure acceptance and usability of the Hadagio Personal Health System. | Phase 1: needs assessment through questionnaires and debriefing focus group. (n=17) Phase 2a: Task analysis and definition of system requirements based on phase 1results and analysis of existing services 2b: Interviews with older adults to inform production of a booklet with fictional use scenarios for recruitment for the pilot assessment (n=10) Phase 3: Specification of an ergonomics/usability of the system and interface design. Phase 4: Iterative usability using a mock-up prototype and prototype refinement n=14. Phase 5: Pilot with MPV in real-life settings (n=300) (Following negative feedback-new living- lab method proposed): Participants actively involved in the writing of use-scenarios to identify unmet needs System include in a storyboard-participants asked to imagine potential problems when using the system. |
Malmborg, Binder and Brandt, (2010), Co- designing Senior Interaction: Inspiration Stories for Participatory Design with Health and Social Care Institutions Workshop. | Denmark | Formulate alternatives to the political/economic driven agenda for senior citizens. To design new horizontal service concepts to strengthen social interaction among seniors, contributing to greater self-reliance and social wellbeing. | A series of design labs (3 workshops) Phase 1: Individual visits prior to the 1st workshop by project group. Development of personal workbook with individual stories and life fragments for each participant. Formulation of 11 themes relevant to seniors’ everyday lives. Use of props to explore one a ‘good to share’ experience. Seniors played out what a good shared experience would look like in their lives- played out stories used to design services by private service provides and municipalities. Phase 2: A number of innovative concepts sketched on a technological platform. Phase3: Proposal to use seniors’ homes as design experimental platforms. |
Brankaert and den Ouden, (2013), Setting up a living lab for innovation in the dementia care chain, a case study of the PhysiCAL | Netherlands | Development process to design innovative products and related services for people living with dementia. (Physical- activity reminder calendar- as an example) | After use feedback (Older people and carer jointly interviewed) Care chain consultations in 3 workshops (Evaluation of the product and evaluation of the living lab approach). Discussion of companies’ main drivers in a workshop, (evaluation of the product and the living lab concept). |
Vermueulen et al., (2015), eLabel: Technology-Supported Living Labs in Primary Care. | Netherlands | Implementation of ehealth and telecare technologies in primary care to support transition from traditional care to telecare and e-health | 1st phase: All stakeholders collaborate to select telecare technologies and eHealth applications. 2nd phase: Implementation of technologies into primary care. Two-year follow up study to assess the impact on patient experiences professionals and organisations. 3rd phase: Development of implementation strategies based on findings of longitudinal study and experiences of patients and professionals. |
Moutmtzi and Wills, (2009), Utilizing Living Labs Approach for the Validation of Services for the Assisting Living of Elderly People | Spain, Italy Greece, UK Finland, France, and Cyprus. | Proposed method for the validation of services for the assisted living of older people T-seniority project. | Assessment of services proposed with real users in long-term test beds (home settings). Direct analysis, using remote data collection techniques and strategies (like technological monitoring) and software logging tools on devices like mobile phones or smart TVs and on network (online) platforms. Indirect analysis, focus groups, in-depth interviews and self-reporting techniques (e.g. diaries). ‘Following user journeys across a sea of devices and services’. Feedback, (post measurement using same techniques as in previous steps and a set of technological recommendations). |
Yasuoka et al., (2018), Living Labs as a Methodology for Service Design: An Analysis Based on Cases and Discussions from a Systems Approach Viewpoint | Denmark | Application of living lab approaches to service design. Examination of literature review and 8 living lab cases in Japan and Scandinavia (5 are senior living labs). Review of methods in the living labs. | Categorisation of living labs into 2 types: Hypothesis search: End-users are partners in early design phases (i.e., problem identification). End -user activities include, planning, designing, and creating with developers; active involvement in problem identification, concept development, and testing in real life settings, and small social experiments using prototypes. Hypothesis verification: Older people test products provided by companies, verify the usability of services and tools, and give advice for improvement to companies. Collaboration between companies, older people and municipalities to create ideas as well as verify and improve new products and services that the healthcare industry provides. |
3 Results
3.1 The living labs
3.1.1 Duration of living lab processes
3.1.2 Older peoples’ involvement
3.1.3 Location of activities
3.2 Geographical regions of the living labs
3.3 Purposes/motivations of the living labs
3.4 Actors involved in the development and activities in the living labs
-
Transdisciplinary academics (e.g. designers, economists, engineers, healthcare professionals, collaborating with existing associations like business entities and policymakers, [2])
-
Human factor specialists, psychologists, physicians, engineers, designers, sociologists, and health economists (the living lab has affiliations with two hospitals and a national centre for older adults living with cognitive disorders, Pino et al. [25].
-
van Geenhuizen, [31]; Brankaert and den Ouden [9] Pedell et al. [24]; Kopec et al. [19]; Andersen et al. [1]; Malmborg et al. [22]; Brankaert and den Ouden [8]; Vermueulen et al. [33] and Moutmtzi and Wills [23] reported activities as being led by researchers in collaboration with various stakeholders including industry partners, community co-ordinators, older adults, care professionals and informal caregivers.