Living Labs: A New Tool for Co-production?
- 1.6k Downloads
Living Labs are places for real-life test and experimentation where users and experts co-create innovative products and services through an ICT-based collaboration. Founded in the context of private firms, LLs evolved into a policy tool implemented to facilitate service innovation also in the public sector. Furthermore, due to their strong focus on user participation, LLs are now increasingly central in the smart-city strategy of various municipalities such as Barcelona, Helsinki, Tallinn and Birmingham. Citizen creativity, in fact, is an integral part of smart cities and the ‘laboratory dimension’ perfectly fits with this new approach to urban development. Namely, the transformation of the city into a living lab is aimed at supporting the process of policy innovation at the municipal level through local empowerment and the promotion of partnership among enterprises, public administration and citizens. In this respect, LLs can be viewed as a new form of co-production that is a process through which citizens participate in the design and creation of products or services that are less expensive and better tailored to citizens’ needs. Drawing on data related to 59 LLs listed in the database of the European Network of LLs, the paper is aimed at describing the main characteristics of LLs and at examining their strengths and weaknesses as co-production tools.
KeywordsLiving labs Co-production Open innovation Citizen participation Smart cities
This paper presents part of the results of a research project financed by the University of Padua (Grant n. CPDA 135388).
- Alcotra. (2011). Best practices database for living labs: Overview of the living lab approach. Alcotra Innovation project, Deliverable 23.Google Scholar
- Almirall, E., Lee, M., & Wareham, J. (2012). Mapping living labs in the landscape of innovation methodologies. In Technology innovation management review (pp. 12–18).Google Scholar
- Ballon, P., Pierson, J., & Delaere, S. (2005). Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: Examining European practice. In Studies on Media, Information and Telecommunication (SMIT)—Interdisciplinary Institute for BroadBand Technology (IBBT). Belgium, Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
- Bason, C., Mygind, J., & Sabroe, R. (2013). Co-production. Towards a new welfare model. Copenhagen: MindLab.Google Scholar
- Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production. How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. Discussion paper. London: Nesta.Google Scholar
- Bovaird, T., & Downe, J. (2008). Innovation in public engagement and co-production of services. Policy paper commissioned by the Department of Communities and Local Government, UK.Google Scholar
- Bovaird, P., Stoker, G., Jones, P., Loeffler, E., & Roncancio, M. P. (2013). Activating collective co-production mechanisms for public services: Influencing citizens to participate in complex governance. Paper presented at the 11th Public Management Research Conference, Madison, Wisconsin, June 20–22.Google Scholar
- Christiansen, J., & Bunt, L. (2012). Innovation in policy: Allowing for creativity, social complexity and uncertainty in public governance. London: Nesta.Google Scholar
- CoreLabs. (2007). Living labs roadmap 2007–2010: Recommendations on networked systems for open user-driven research, development and innovation. Open Document, Luleå: Luleå University of Technology, Centrum for Distance Spanning Technology.Google Scholar
- Directorate-General for the Information Society and Media. (2009). Living labs for user-driven open innovation. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
- Eskelinen, J., Robles García, A., Lindy, I., Marsh, J., & Muente-Kunigami, A. (2015). Citizen-driven innovation. A guidebook for city mayors and public administrators. Washington: The World Bank.Google Scholar
- Feuerstein, K., Hesmer, A., Hribernik, K. A., Thoben, K. D., & Schumacher, J. (2008). Living labs: A new development strategy. In J. Schumacher & V. P. Niitamo (Eds.), European living labs (pp. 1–14). Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
- Griffiths, S., Foley, B., & Prendergrast, J. (2009). Assertive citizens: New relationships in the public services. London: Social Market Foundation.Google Scholar
- Juujrvi, S. & Pesso, K. (2013). Actor roles in an urban living lab: What can we learn from Suurpelto, Finland? In Technology Innovation Management Review (pp. 22–27).Google Scholar
- Loffer, E. (2009). A future research agenda for co-production. Overview paper. In Co-production: A series of commissioned papers. The Local Authorities & Research Councils’ Initiative (LARCI). www.larci.org.uk.
- Ostrom, E., & Baugh, W. H. (1973). Community organization and the provision of police services. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin D. (2010). Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. Paris: First European Summer School Living Labs.Google Scholar
- Pierson, J., & Lievens, B. (2005). Configuring living labs for a ‘Thick’ understanding of innovation. In EPIC (Vol. 2005(1), pp. 114–127).Google Scholar
- Tonurist, P., Kattel, R., & Lember, V. (2015). Discovering innovation labs in the public sector. Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics, no. 61, June. Tallin: Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance.Google Scholar