Desarrollo de la instrumentación oftálmica

In late 2007, the European Commission – DG INFSO, Unit F4 – awarded to Altec SA, International Research, the execution of an evaluative study [13] on the potential of the emerging Living Labs “phenomenon”. The study was concluded right in coincidence with the ICT 2008 event in Lyon, when the results of the 3rd wave

Page 34 of 78

ENoLL call were officially announced. Thus, it only dealt with the 51 ENoLL members known at the time, which were approached and inspected through a variety of research methods and tools – from online surveys to interview based case studies, from Social Network Analysis to MASAI® and PACE©.

Based upon the evidence collected, the most recurring elements of European Living Labs could be listed as follows:

- A University played a key role, ensuring a systematic and coherent implementation of underlying methodologies (Open Innovation and the like);

- One or more local/global industries were involved as technology providers, being interested in designing, testing or validating their prototype products and services;

- The Open Innovation concept was assumed, postulating that there is more value to companies in “sharing and spreading” rather than “storing and protecting” the knowledge created by various internal and external sources, such as employees, customers, suppliers, etc.;

- A real-life testing environment was established, supported by the ICT, where users’ feedback on innovation was collected and aggregated as long as it emerged from a seamless and spontaneous interaction between people and technologies;

- A user centric approach to innovation was implemented, putting people’s feedback at the core (or as integral part) of the product and service design/development/validation/marketing process, especially in the earlier stages of it;

- An external funding entity (typically a public one) made all of the above financially feasible; and - An ‘umbrella’ organisation acted from the background, either a virtual (like an informal network) or a

real one, named “XYZ Living Lab” and being a public/private partnership composed of several local and global stakeholders, each of them with some degree of relevance and/or expertise in the areas of e.g. territorial marketing, technology transfer, R&D promotion or business incubation, and the like.

Another crucial element of a Living Lab should logically be the establishment of a ‘permanent’ community of users, who are iteratively asked to become integrated in some particular stages of the design/development/validation and marketing process, and whose feedback is collected by means of various socio-ethnographic research methods (from focus groups to surveys, from TV recorded debates to web based interviews and polls). However, very few European Living Labs could at the time rely on such a permanently established (and potentially quite numerous) user community. Notable exceptions were identified in Lulea, Sweden and Oulu, Finland, in which cases the number of involved people reached the order of thousands. In many other cases, if relevant to its policy aims, it was the City or Regional Authority lying behind the ‘umbrella’ organisation of the Living Lab, which took on the commitment to build such a community, starting from the whole constituency, often as a complement of an ongoing strategy towards bridging the digital divide or promoting innovation in the territory. Relevant examples in the latter direction ranged from Spain (e.g. Barcelona or Zaragoza) to the UK (Manchester), from Sweden/Finland (Åboland/the Turku Archipelago) to France (Paris) and Greece (Thessaloniki). In some other cases, it was the University itself, holding responsibility for Living Lab’s methodology deployment, which utilised its students to run particular trials in the area of, say, mobile innovation. Examples of such a kind were reported from Belgium (Brussels), Slovenia (Maribor), and Germany (Bremen).

According to the evidence collected during the Study, the 1st and 2nd wave ENoLL members were clustered in the 6 profiles described below. As any taxonomy, this also can be questionable in its conception, but it has the advantages of being complete, quite informative, and without overlaps between the features of each different group. Its robustness was also successfully tested with the members of the 3rd wave ENoLL, which could not be included due to lack of published information at the time the final report was prepared. The next picture shows the frequency of occurrences of each profile in the surveyed universe.

Page 35 of 78

Figure 24: Key Profiles of Living Labs (Source: [13])

Profile #1: Single sector Business Association

It was the least represented case (6% of occurrences). The Living Lab was organised and pushed forward by an ‘umbrella’ association which represented the interests of several companies of a same business sector (e.g. automotive). Typically this profile was not very developed in terms of successful trials. However, it has a great potential in two main respects:

- as a promoter and aggregator of thematic R&D and innovation initiatives in the territory of reference; - as a vehicle for cross-national, pan-European interoperability of Living Labs trials, platforms and

solutions.

Profile #2: Open Innovation prone Enterprise

1 out of 10 occurrences belonged to this case, which is similar to the previous one, being another Living Lab that is likely motivated by a vested business interest. However this profile, instead of a corporate association, was based on a single enterprise’s initiative, adopting the User driven, Open Innovation concept and/or creating a network of relations aimed at the cooperative design and validation of novel ideas, products and services. While interesting per se, the presence of individual enterprises within the ENoLL could also be useful in terms of exemplarity and potential transfer of the concepts, methods and tools utilised.

Profile #3: Policy-driven Government initiative

This was unsurprisingly the most common case (35% of occurrences) within the 1st and 2nd wave ENoLL. The Living Lab was clearly backed up by a Regional or City Government – also in those few cases where a non- profit foundation, or even a cooperative cluster, were practically managing it. The prevalent dimension of this case is akin to local development, also as a complement to more traditional innovation policies and practices (such as territorial marketing, business incubators, technology clusters, industrial parks, etc.). An additional side benefit of this profile was the prompt availability of a permanent user community, obviously emerging from citizens and stakeholders forming the Government’s “constituency”.

Page 36 of 78 Profile #4: Network-oriented University spin-off

1 out of 4 occurrences within the 1st and 2nd wave ENoLL belonged to this case, which - together with the following one - encompasses that wide majority of European Living Labs that had been created or were being animated by a University. However, this group was split into two clusters, in order to highlight the (very relevant) number of cases where the initiative of a University was clearly identifiable as the “prime mover” of a network of relations aimed at the implementation of User driven, Open Innovation concepts in real life environments.

A second reason for isolating this case is that right after the previous profile (i.e. the Government backed one), this cluster of Living Labs included the second most numerous and qualified number of recorded trials. However, there could also be a matter of privacy here, preventing the collection of a comparable number of successful results from the remaining two clusters, both characterised by a more explicit care for confidentiality.

Profile #5: High-tech R&D Laboratory

Together with the previous profile, this also documents the central role played by the European Universities in the initiation of the Living Labs “phenomenon”. Although not exclusively belonging to academia, the majority of Living Labs grouped in this cluster had the nature of public-private partnerships centred around the provision of testing facilities to a qualified network of stakeholders, where the S&T orientation of those initiatives was strongly dependent on the active involvement of local high education institutions. Most trials documented in this case did leverage on ICT as transversal, enabling technologies in a variety of industrial domains, typically selected for their relevance to regional or local development. This confirms the intuition that Living Labs primarily have a nature of supporting instruments to regional innovation policies.

Profile #6: Business services provider

This was the second least represented case (8% of occurrences). This Living Lab profile depicted a private or public, business oriented, real or virtual (cooperative) organisation, aiming to provide testing and validation services to local enterprises – particularly SMEs. Typically this profile did not disclose a high number of successful trials, due to obvious confidentiality reasons. Nonetheless, this cluster (like profile #2 based on single enterprises initiatives) was seen as extremely important to the smooth progress of future Living Labs activities, to the extent it could serve as a showcase for the consolidation of a business model that goes beyond the exclusive dependence on external funding sources.

In the framework of Alcotra Innovation, we have had the opportunity to repeat the above assessment, this time using as reference the complete population of ENoLL members. Quite interestingly, the composition of Living Lab profiles described in Figure 24 for the ‘1st and 2nd wave’ is confirmed for the entire universe.

Page 37 of 78

Figure 25: Key Profiles of Living Labs (Source: ENoLL database)

The next diagrams compare the distribution of profiles for the EU27 and the non-EU Living Labs that are members of ENoLL.

Page 38 of 78

5. Conclusion and Future Work

In this document, we have proposed a survey of all 274 Living Labs that are current members of the ENoLL, based on textual information derived, when available, from the individual self-descriptions delivered by the candidates to the various ENoLL “waves”, otherwise from the Living Lab profiles that are published on the www.openlivinglabs.eu website. We have clustered the results in aggregate form (by country, maturity, thematic domain, nature of the leading organization), thus avoiding the risk of disclosure of confidential or simply personal data that was not already public or confirmed by other independent sources (especially the respective Living Lab websites).

While this approach may lend itself to some criticisms, as it leaves a lot of margin to the discretional interpretation of the researcher, we believe it also comes as close as possible to what can be said to be an objective and neutral presentation of the Living Lab movement in 2011. Furthermore, given the framework of the Alcotra Innovation project, and particularly the four thematic domains of election for the participant Regions, our focus was set to the Living Labs that have characterized themselves as belonging to one or more of these domains (as multiple options were also available).

The analysis of best practice is completed by an introduction to the territorial Living Lab model and by a comparison of a number of operational methodologies purporting to its concrete implementation. In the Annexes, we also provide the full listing of the current ENoLL members with their respective websites, and in addition to that, the published profiles of those Living Labs that are coming from the Alcotra Innovation regions (PACA, Piedmont and Rhone-Alpes).

Next steps will be:

1. A refinement of the above analysis, spotting any mistakes and completing or enhancing the comments in support;

2. The population of the Alcotra Innovation online database (e-Atlas) with geo-referenced information about the 274 members of ENoLL – or at least those 217 that come from EU27 countries and are active in the same thematic domains, as per Table 2 above.

Page 39 of 78

6. References

[1] Molinari, F. 2011. Living Labs as Multi-Stakeholder Platforms for the eGovernance of Innovation. In: Proceedings of the ICEGOV11 Conference.

[2] Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V-P., and Kulkki, S. 2005. State of the Art in utilizing the Living Labs Approach to User-centric ICT Innovation – a European Approach. Unpublished manuscript.

[3] Santoro, R., and Conte, M. 2009. Living Labs in Open Innovation Functional Regions. In: Proceedings of the ICE09 Conference. [4] Von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, US.

[5] Lahti, P., Kangasoja, J., and Huovila, P. (Eds.) 2006. Electronic and Mobile Participation in City Planning and Management. Experiences from INTELCITIES an Integrated Project of the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Union. Cases Helsinki, Tampere, Garðabær/Reykjavik and Frankfurt. Picaset Oy, Helsinki - ISBN 952-473-646-2.

[6] http://www.freeband.nl

[7] Schaffers, H., Guerrero Cordoba, M., Hongisto, P., Kallai, T., Merz, C. , and van Rensburg, J. 2007. Exploring Business Models for Open Innovation in Rural Living Labs. In: 13th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising, Sophia-Antipolis, France, 4- 6 June, pp. 13 ff.

[8] Schaffers, H., and Kulkki, S. 2007. Living Labs. An Open Innovation Concept fostering Rural Development. Tech Monitor, September-October, 30-38.

[9] Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

[10] Steins, N.A., and Edwards, V.M. 1998. Platforms for Collective Action in Multiple-Use CPRs. Paper presented at Crossing Boundaries, the 7th Annual Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Vancouver, British Columbia, June 10th–14th.

[11] Reichart, S. 2002. Die Gestaltung des Produktinnovations prozesses. In: M. Reichert (Ed.) Prozessmanagement mit System. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Berlin.

[12] Almirall, E., and Wareham, J. 2008. Living Labs and Open Innovation: Roles and Applicability. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks (eJOV), Vol. 10 “Special Issue on Living Labs”, August.

[13] European Commission, Information Society and Media 2008. Study on the Potential of the Living Labs Approach including its Relation to Experimental Facilities for Future Internet related Technologies. Final Report, 30th November. Online:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/livinglabs/study/index_en.htm

[14] Moulaert, F. and Sekia, F. 2003. Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies 37, 3, 289–302. [15] DTI 2004. Innovation through People Centred Design – Lessons from the USA. Global Watch Mission Report, October. [16] OECD 1997. Technology Incubators: Nurturing Small Firms. Paris, OECD Press.

[17] Cooke, P. 2001. From Technopoles to Regional Innovation Systems: The Evolution of Localised Technology Development Policy. Canadian Journal of Regional Science/Revue canadienne des sciences régionales, XXIV:1 (Spring/Printemps), 21-40. [18] Moore, J.F. 1996. The Death of Competition - Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. Harper Business, New

York.

[19] Nachira, F., Nicolai, A., Dini, P., Le Louarn, M. and Rivera Leon, M. (Eds.) 2007. Digital Business Ecosystems. European Commission, DG INFSO, Brussels.

[20] Leamer, E.E., and Storper, M. 2001. The Economic Geography of the Internet Age. Journal of International Business Studies 32, 641–665.

[21] Aydalot, P. 1986. Milieux Innovateurs en Europe. GREMI, Paris.

[22] Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A., and Svensson, J. 2009. A Milieu for Innovation - Defining Living Labs. Paper presented at the 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium “Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management”, 6-9 December 2009, in New York City, USA.

[23] Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Holst, M., and Ståhlbröst, A. 2009. Concept Design with a Living Lab Approach. Paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE.

[24] Molinari, F., and Zanella, L. 2009. Living Labs for Wild Fire Prevention in Rural Environments. Proceedings of the mGov2009 conference, Barcelona, Spain.

[25] Pierson, J. and Lievens, B. 2005. Configuring Living Labs for a “thick” Understanding of Innovation. Proceedings of the EPIC Conference 2005, pp. 114-127.

Page 40 of 78

[26] Pallot, M. 2009. The Living Lab Approach: A User Centred Open Innovation Ecosystem. Webergence Blog (http://www.cwe- projects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/715404).

[27] Bifulco, A. and Santoro, R. 2005. A Conceptual Framework for ‘Professional Virtual Communities’. In: IFIP International Federation for Information Processing, Vol. 186 (January), pp. 417-424.

[28] Følstad, A. 2008 Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communication Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, Vol. 10, Special Issue on Living Labs, pp. 99-131. [29] Von Hippel, E. and Katz, 2002. Shifting Innovation to Users via Toolkits.

[30] Von Hippel, E. 2006. How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study.

[31] Stahlbrost, A., Holst, M., and Sallstrom A. 2009. Guidelines for mobilizing and involving people in the development of new ICT solutions. CDT – Centre for Distance-Spanning Technology at Lulea University of technology, Sweden.

[32] Niitamo, V.-P. 2007. Presentation to the Panel Session entitled “Cocreative Research and Innovation. Connecting the Lisbon Strategy to the People”. Bled eConference 2007, 5 June.

[33] Finnish EU Presidency, 2006. The Helsinki Manifesto. “We have to move fast, before it is too late”. 20th November 2006. [34] Stahlbrost A., 2008. Forming Future IT, The Living Lab way of user involvement. Luleå University of Technology, Center for

Distance Spanning Technology.

[35] CoreLabs, 2007. Living Labs Roadmap 2007-2010: Recommendations on Networked Systems for Open User-Driven Research, Development and Innovation. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/cf/ict2008/document.cfm

Page 41 of 78

Annex A: Full Database of ENoLL Members

Following is the list of all EU and non-EU Living Labs that are currently in the ENoLL database, ordered by country.

Country Living Lab Name URL

Australia Future Logistics Living Lab http://www.futurelogisticslivinglab.com.au/ Austria Mobile City Bregenz www.bregenz.at , www.livinglab-vorarlberg.at Austria EVOLARIS MOBILE LIVING LAB (Graz) http://www.evolaris.net

Austria LivingLab Schwechat http://www.ceit.at Austria Sound of Media LL http://somll.spiritmedia.at/ Belgium IBBT-iLab.o http://www.ibbt.be Belgium LeYLab www.alcatel-lucent.com Belgium Ghent Living Lab www.gent.be

Belgium EGG Lab www.facebook.com "The Egg Brussels" , www.foursquare.com "The Egg" Belgium Flemish Living Lab Platform www.flemishlivinglabplatform.be

Brazil ESPÍRITO SANTO CIDADANIA DIGITAL LIVING LAB http://www.ncd.ufes.br/ Brazil Amazon Living Lab www.fpf.br Brazil

INdT- Well Being and Health Care LL / Mobile

Work Spaces Living Lab http://www.indt.org.br

Brazil Habitat Living Lab http://web3.ufes.br/habitat/consulado_en.html Brazil BBILL www.itb3.bio.br

Brazil Rio LL http://www.genesis.puc-rio.br/main.asp Brazil Group Inter-Action LL http:www.ufam.edu.br Brazil EDP/Brasil LL www.edpbr.com.br Brazil Amazonas Living Lab www.sect.am.gov.br Bulgaria Virtual Services and Open Innovation http://www.virtech-bg.com Bulgaria Digital Spaces Living Lab http://www.digitalspaces.info Canada Urban Hub http://www.sat.qc.ca Canada Mandalab www.communautique.qc.ca China TianJin-China Living Lab http://www.chinalivinglab.com China China Mobile Research Institute http://labs.chinamobile.com

China MC² http://livinglab.vicp.net/mc2 , www.mobilelifeclub.org China

Living Lab of China Mobile Communication

Corporation (LLCM) http://www.chinamobileltd.com/ Colombia CINTEL - La Boquilla - CO www.cintel.org.co Colombia LIVING LAB CLUSTER TIC´S BOGOTÁ www.esicenter-sinertic.org/index.php Colombia

Living Lab ‘Antioquia, Departamento del

Conocimiento’ www.paisdelconocimiento.org Colombia GestionRiesgoTIC Risk Management ICT http://livinglab.salvalavidas.org Colombia Living Lab Medellín Digital http://www.medellindigital.gov.co

Colombia Laboratorio Vivo InteligenciaColectiva http://inteligenciacolectiva.co , http://knowledgefactory.tv Colombia Living Lab Ciudad Bolivar Digital http.//www.ciudadbolivarlocalidaldigital.gov.co/english_version Croatia Rijeka iLiving Lab www.pfri.eu

Cyprus TLL Kypros - Territorial Living Lab Kypros http://www.anetel.com Czech

Republic WIRELESSINFO – Czech Living Labs www.wirelessinfo.cz Denmark Copenhagen Living Lab http://www.copenhagenlivinglab.com Denmark

Regional strategic impact through creative use of

Page 42 of 78

Egypt Egyptian School Education Living Labs www.moe.gov.eg , http://knowledge.moe.gov.eg/arabic/departments/tdc Egypt RetailNetLL www.mti.gov.eg

Egypt Egyptian-Dutch Agricultural LL www.arc.sci.eg Finland Turku Archipelago LL www.sgnet.fi Finland Agro Living Lab, Seinäjoki www.frami.fi