Stakeholder Engagement in the Smart City: Making Living Labs Work

Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 8)


This chapter discusses attempts to involve stakeholders in the co-production of Future Internet (FI) services in a smart city living lab. We outline the experience of five European cities using an open innovation approach to citizens’ engagement in the co-production of smart city services. Recent practice and emergent trends in five urban ecosystems, called ‘Arenas’, are analysed by drawing on the results of detailed case study research. These results are set against ‘good practice’ expectations about how co-production should occur as set out by the European Network of Living Labs as well as in open innovation strategic policies. Based on the case studies, a set of propositions are explored about what needs to be done to build the stakeholder innovation networks required to shape future smart cities. The study suggests that if smart cities are to deliver a better quality of life in more attractive urban areas, new ways of engaging with the stakeholders are necessary to provide them with not just better access and inclusion but also to empower them to act as a catalyst in transforming the dynamics of city services as well. In light of the demands of delivering the FI, cities also need to redefine what they mean when they claim to be a ‘smart’ city and to reconfigure what they take to be the underlying role of stakeholder engagement in service co-production.


Smart city Stakeholder engagement Living Lab Service co-production Innovation stakeholder network Future Internet 



This research was undertaken under the Peripheria project which was co-financed by the European Union, CIP PSP Grant Agreement no. 271015. Special thanks go from the authors to all the project partners and their stakeholders involved in this project for their active role in stakeholder engagement and idea generation.


  1. Almirall, E. & Wareham, J. (2008). Living labs and open innovation: Roles and applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10(3), 21–46.Google Scholar
  2. Ayuso, S., Rodríguez, M. Á., García-Castro, R., & Ariño, M. Á. (2011). Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orientation? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(9), 1399–1417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Delaere, S. (2007). Fostering innovation in networked communications: Test and experimentation. In S. Hielsen & S. Jensen (Eds.), Designing for networked communications: Strategies and development (p. 137). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barki, H. & Hartwick, J. (1991). User participation and user involvement in information system development. Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences 1991. IEEE, pp. 487–492. USA: Wailea.Google Scholar
  5. Baroudi, J. J., Olson, M. H., & Ives, B. (1986). An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction. Communications of the ACM, 29(3), 232–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beamish, E., McDade, D., Mulvenna, M., Martin, S., & Soilemezi, D. (2012). Better together: The TRAIL user participation toolkit for living labs. Accessed 25 Jan 2014.
  7. Benkler, Y. & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Commons‐based peer production and virtue, Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergvall-Kaareborn, B., Howcroft, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Wikman, A. M. (2010). Participation in living lab: Designing systems with users. I: Human benefit through the diffusion of information systems design science research : IFIP WG 8.2/8.6 International Working Conference, Perth, Australia, March 30-April 1, Berlin:Springer, pp. 317–326. (IFIP International Federation for Information Processing; 318).Google Scholar
  9. Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2010). Participatory design and democratizing innovation. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial participatory design conference 2010 (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Boyle, D. & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production. London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carter, D. (2011). Smart Cities: Creating an inclusive and sustainable knowledge society: A local digital agenda for Manchester. Paper presented at the PICNIC 2011 conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, September 14.Google Scholar
  13. Cavaye, A. L. (1995). User participation in system development revisited. Information & Management, 28(5), 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cleland, B., Mulvenna, M., Galbraith, B., Wallace, J., & Martin, S. (2012). Innovation of eParticipation strategies using living labs as intermediaries. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(2), 120–132.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, B. (2012). The 10 Smartest Cities in Europe. Accessed 12 Feb 2014.
  16. Cooper, I., Paskaleva, K., & Marsh J. (2011). Initial evaluation framework: Networked Smart Peripherial Cities, Peripheria Project: Deliverable 6.1.1, European Community Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, Grant Agreement number: 271015, ICT Policy Support Programme.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, I., Paskaleva, K., Marsh J., & Concilio, G. (2012). Impact assessment report: Networked Smart Peripherial Cities, Peripheria Project: Deliverable 6.2.1, European Community Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme, Grant Agreement number: 271015, ICT Policy Support Programme.Google Scholar
  18. Cunningham, P., Herselman, M., & Cunningham, M. (2012). Introduction to living labs. In Living labs and living labs networks in Africa, IIMC International Information Management Corporation Ltd, IST-Africa Initiative, 2. 0, 31 January. ISBN: 978-1-905824-28-1.Google Scholar
  19. Deakin, M. & Allwinkle, S. (2007). Urban regeneration and sustainable communities: The role of networks, innovation, and creativity in building successful partnerships. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(1), 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Draetta, L. & Labarthe, F. (2010). The Living labs at the test of user-centred innovation—Proposal of a methodological framework. Lugano: CE 2010—Collaborative environments for sustainable innovation. Lugano: Switzerland.Google Scholar
  21. EC. (2010a). Europe 2020—Priorities. Accessed 10 Jan 2014.
  22. EC. (2010b). Living labs for user-driven open innovation, Directorate General for the Information Society and Media. Accessed 28 Jan 2014.
  23. EC. (2012). Future Internet Assembly, smart city applications and services, May 10–11, Aalborg, Denmark. Accessed 12 Dec 2013.
  24. EC. (2014a). Digital agenda for Europe—about the Future Internet. Accessed 28 Jan 2014.
  25. EC. (2014b). Digital agenda for Europe—Open Innovation 2.0: Sustainable economy & society-stability. Jobs. Prosperity, Dublin, Ireland, 20/05–21/05. Accessed 27 Jan 2014.
  26. EC. (2014c). Digital Agenda for Europe—Open Innovation 2.0. Accessed 10 Jan 2014.
  27. EC. (2014d). Digital Agenda for Europe—Open innovation. Accessed 14 Jan 2014.
  28. ENoLL. (2010). European conference on ‘Smart Cities’ as centres for user-driven open innovation. centres-user-driven-open-innovation. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.
  29. ENoLL (n.d.) European Network of Living Labs. Accessed 10 Dec 2013.
  30. Froessler, F., Rukanova, B., Klein, S., Tan, Y., & Higgins, A. (2007) Inter-organisational network formation and sense-making: initiation and management of public-private collaboration, in Proceedings of the 20th Bled eMergence. Bled, Slovenia, (pp. 1–17).Google Scholar
  31. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of management review, 24(2), 191–205.Google Scholar
  32. Gould, R. (2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of technology management & innovation, 7(3), p. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenbaum, J. & Kyng, M. (1991). Situated design. In J. Greenbaum & M. Kyng (Eds.). Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 1–24). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Harris, M. A. & Weistroffer, H. R. (2009). A new look at the relationship between user involvement in systems development and system success. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 24(1), p. 42.Google Scholar
  35. Hart, S. L. & Sharma, S. (2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. The academy of management executive (1993–2005) (pp. 7–18).Google Scholar
  36. Hartwick, J. & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management science, 40(4), 440–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hippel, E. v. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hippel, E. v. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT-Press.Google Scholar
  39. Hwang, M. I. & Thorn, R. G. (1999). The effect of user engagement on system success: A meta analytical integration of research findings. Information and Management, 35, 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Komninos, N. (2009). Intelligent cities: towards interactive and global innovation environments. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & information technology, 22(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kviselius, N. Z. & Andersson, P. (2009). Living labs as tools for open innovation. Communications & Strategies, 74, 75.Google Scholar
  43. Lamberg, J., Pajunen, K., Parvinen, P., & Savage, G. T. (2008). Stakeholder management and path dependence in organizational transitions. Management Decision, 46(6), 846–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lemke, M. & Luotonen, O. (2009). Open innovation for future internet-enabled services in “smart” cities. Discussion Paper. Draft 0.2 [Online], Brussels, Accessed May 2014.
  45. Levén, P. & Holmström, J. (2008). Consumer co-creation and the ecology of innovation: A living lab approach. Public systems in the future: possibilities, challenges and pitfalls 2008.
  46. Lewric, M., Raeside, R., & Peisl, T. (2007). The innovators’ social network. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 2(3), 38–48.Google Scholar
  47. Lin, W. T. & Shao, B. B. (2000). The relationship between user participation and system success: A simultaneous contingency approach. Information & Management, 37(6), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Linde, P., Peterson, B., & Paskaleva, K. (2012). Stakeholder enlistment in the Peripheria Pilots. Peripheria EU FP7 ICT PSP Project Deliverable 3.1 [Online], Accessed April 2014.
  49. Malmo Stad. (n.d.). Area programme for a socially sustainable Malmo.–politik/Sa-arbetar-vi-med./Omradesprogram.html. Accessed April 2014.
  50. Marsh, J. (2013). Peripheria—the human smart cities cookbook. Accessed 12 May 2014.
  51. MEDEA. (n.d.). Category archives: Living labs. Accessed 12 May 2014.
  52. Mulder, I., Velthausz, D., & Kriens, M. (2008). The living labs harmonization cube: Communicating living lab’s essentials. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
  53. Mulvenna, M., Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Wallace, J., Galbraith, B., & Martin, S. (2010) Living labs as engagement models for innovation. eChallenges 2010 (pp. 1–11). IEEE: Piscataway.Google Scholar
  54. O’Reilly, T. & Battelle J. (2008). Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On, Special Report, Web 2.0 Summit, Co-Produced by O’REILLY & Techweb M. Pallot, B. Trousse, B. Senach, S. Richir, B. de Ruyter, W. Prinz, O. Rerolle, & B Katzy. Living lab research, ECOSPACE Newsletter special issue on living labs. ECOSPACE Consortium.Google Scholar
  55. Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin, D. (2010). Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. First European Summer School ‘Living Labs’ 2010.
  56. Pamela, S. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement: From control to collaboration. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 25.Google Scholar
  57. Paskaleva, K. (2011). The smart city: A nexus for open innovation? Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Paskaleva, K. (2012). The smart city, open innovation and stakeholder engagement, In P. Linde, B. Peterson, & K. Paskaleva (Eds.), Stakeholder enlistment in the Peripheria Pilots. Peripheria EU FP7 ICT PSP Project Deliverable 3.1 [Online], Accessed May 2014.
  59. Paskaleva-Shapira, K. (2009) Assessing local readiness for city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 4(4), 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peripheria project. (2010). Accessed May 2014.
  61. Prahalad, C. & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79–90.Google Scholar
  62. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Aguas, M., Almirall, E., Bakici, T., Barroca, J., Carter, D., Corriou, M., & Fernadez, J. (2012). FIREBALL white paper on smart cities as innovation ecosystems sustained by the Future Internet. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.
  63. Sloan, P. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. SMARTiP. (2010). DoW, CIP-ICT PSP Call 4 2010 Pilot B: SMARTiP, Description of Work, Confidential document.Google Scholar
  65. Ståhlbröst, A., Lievens, B., Merz, C., & Turkama, P. (2010). APOLLON. Deliverable 1.1 A Catalogue of state-of-the-art concepts, existing tools and lessons learned for crossborder living lab networks [Online]. Accessed 13 May 2013.
  66. Thrift, N. (2006). Re-inventing invention: new tendencies in capitalist commodification. Economy and Society, 35 (2), 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ziestma, C. & Winn, M. (2008). Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual influence in stakeholder conflicts. Business and Society, 47(1), 68–101.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Eclipse Research ConsultantsCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Malmö University/MedeaMalmöSweden
  4. 4.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations