The Paradigm Shift of Living Labs in Service Co-creation for Smart Cities: SynchroniCity Validation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 27)


In the literature there are many definitions of co-creation and several disciplines are involved within this approach, especially co-design, participatory design and open innovation. Co-creation has been linked with many tools and platforms, without a coherent framework and specific guiding principles to follow, especially within the smart cities’ context for developing new services. For this reason, it is required to clearly define which are the methods and digital tools that cities should pursue to fully exploit the potential of these platforms in terms of enhancing global collaborations. Starting from the review of the literature on participatory design, co-creation and open innovation, the paper aims to discuss the role of Living Labs in supporting service design for smart cities, by providing an effective approach for involving stakeholders in real life experimentation through digital platforms. The evaluation has taken into account the current use of co-creation approaches by eight smart cities involved in the SynchroniCity project, and considered as the current best practices in Europe. The analysis focused on timing, stakeholders, activities for involving citizens, rewarding systems, tools and metrics used to investigate the success of their implementation. Ten methods and twelve tools have been selected as the one best supporting smart cities in service design and their real application has been investigated through an online questionnaire and in depth interviews to the cities. As a result of the study, Living Lab has resulted as the most used and effective method for the smart cities in the EU for service design.


Smart cities Internet of things Co-creation Participatory design Living labs Service design 




This work has been supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreements no 732240, 2017.


  1. 1.
    Von Hippel, E.: Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading. Res. Policy 16(6), 291–302 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P.: Managing the co-creation value. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 83–96 (2007). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roser, T., Samson, A., Humphreys, P., Cruz-Valdivieso, E.: Co-creation: New Pathways to Value (White Paper). Promise/LSE Enterprise, London (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Koning, I.J.C., Crul, R. M., Wever, R.: Models of co-creation, Paper No. 31, TU Delft, The Netherlands (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. 18(3) (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ramaswamy, V., Gouillart, F.: The power of co-creation: built it with them, boost growth, productivity and profits. Free Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leavy, B.: Collaborative innovation as the new imperative-design thinking, value creation and the power of “pull”. Strategy Leadersh. 40(2), 25–34 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V.J.J.M. & Tummers, L. G.: A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manage Rev 17(9), 1333–1357 (2014). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leading Cities.: Co-creating cities. Defining co-creation as a mean of citizen engagement, (2012)
  10. 10.
    Ehn, P.: Participation in design things. In: Proceedings of the 10th PDC 2008, Indiana, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., Hillgren, PA.: Participatory design and democratizing innovation. In: Proceedings of PDC 2010, Sydney, Australia (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Emilson, A., Seravalli, A., Hillgren, P.A.: Dealing with dilemmas: participatory approaches in design for social innovation. Swed. Des. Res. J. 1, 23–29, Malmo, Sweden (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cantù, D. & Selloni, D.: From engaging to empowering people, a set of co-design experiments with a service design perspective, POLIMI DESIS, social frontiers, the next edge of social innovation research, p. 4, Milan, Italy (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Percy, S.L.: Citizen participation in the coproduction of urban services. Urban Aff. Rev. 19(4), 431–446 (1984)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Langley, J.: Participatory design: co-creation|co-production|co-design combining imaging and knowledge. In: Knowledge Utilisation Colloquium, Llandudno, Wales (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huizingh, E.: Open innovation: state of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 31(1), 2–9 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chesbrough, H.: Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, p. 43. Boston: Harvard Business School Press (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Von Hippel, E.: Democritizing Innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachussets. ISBN: 0-262-00274-4 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Selden, L. & MacMillan, I.: Manage customer-centric innovation systematically. Harvard Bus. Rev. Financ. Manag (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Savitskaya, I., Torkkeli, M.: A framework for comparing regional open innovation systems in Russia. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 5(3), 332–346 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission.: Open innovation 2.0 yearbook 2016, DG communications networks, contents and technology. (2016)
  22. 22.
    The Economist Intelligence Unit.: Empowering cities. The real story of how citizens and businesses are driving smart cities. (2016)
  23. 23.
    Martelli C.: A Point of View on New Education for Smart Citizenship. Future Internet Journal, MDPI, Firenze, Italy (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hemment, D., Townsend, A.: Smart citizens. Future everything publications, Manchester, UK, (2013)
  25. 25.
    Hilgers, D., Ihl, C.: Citizensourcing: applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. Int. J. Public Participation 4(1), 67–88 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Preston, E.: Citizensourcing: Harnessing the Power of the Crowds to Monitor Public Services. CEU eTD Collection (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Markopoulos, P., Rauterberg, G.W.M.: Living lab: a white paper. In: IPO Annual Progress Report (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Intille, S.S., Larson, K., Beaudin, J.S., Nawyn, J., Tapia, E.M., Kaushik, P.: A living laboratory for the design and evaluation of ubiquitous computing technologies. In: CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI’05, p. 1941. ACM Press, New York, USA (2005)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    CoreLabs.: Living labs roadmap 2007–2010: recommendations on networked systems for open user-driven research, development and innovation. In: Open Document. Luleå University of Technology, Centrum for Distance Spanning Technology, Luleå (2007)Google Scholar
  30. 30.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.imec-SMIT-VUBBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Digital Design and Information StudiesAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations