DELIVERABLE Project Acronym: Grant number:
APOLLON
Agreement 250516
Project Title:
Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks
D3.7 – Strategy for setting up cross-border pilots in Energy Efficiency domain
Revision: Final
Authors: Álvaro Oliveira (Alfamicro) Manuel Nina (Alfamicro) Pentti Launonen (Aalto-CKIR) Riitta Oja (Process Vision) Francisco Gonçalves (Lisboa E-Nova) Marita Holst (LTU-CDT)
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the ICT Policy Support Programme Dissemination Level P
Public
x
Apollon - D.3.7
Revision History Revision Date
Author
Organisation Description
01
26.03.2012 Manuel Nina ALF
First draft
03
23.04.2012 Manuel Nina ALF
Input LEN
02 04 05 06
17.04.2012 Marita Holst
LTU
23.04.2012 Pentti Launonen
Aalto
23.04.2012 Manuel Nina ALF 24.04.2012 Manuel Nina ALF
Input
from
AMS,
Input Final edit
Final review
The information in this document is provided as is and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability.
Statement of originality: This deliverable contains original unpublished work except where clearly indicated otherwise. Acknowledgement of previously published material and of the work of others has been made through appropriate citation, quotation or both. ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
2
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 Table of Contents 1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4
2.
Living Lab Ecosystem ................................................................................................ 4
3.
The Importance of Crossborder Activities...................................................... 13
4.
The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) ............................................ 14
5.
6.
APOLLON Energy Efficiency Network ............................................................... 15
5.1 Preliminary organizational model ............................................................................15 5.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................................15 5.3 Challenges ..........................................................................................................................16 5.4 Objectives ...........................................................................................................................17 5.5 Domain Network Services offered to Living Labs and SMEs ............................18 5.6 Resources ...........................................................................................................................19 5.7 Business Model .................................................................................................................22 5.7.1 DOMAIN NETWORK 2ND LEVEL SERVICE ACCESS: THE APOLLON MARKET PLACE 22
Core Members of the Energy Efficiency Network ......................................... 24
ANNEX 1 - ENoLL Living Labs ....................................................................................... 27
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
3
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
1. Introduction One of the main results of the Energy Efficiency experiment Workpackage of APOLLON is the establishment of an Energy Efficiency Thematic Domain Network which will serve to promote the cross-border activities regarding Knowledge, Business and Technology transfer. To this avail, the Living Labs involved in the APOLLON project, together with the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), have set up a core group of Living Labs which will define the objectives, tools and services to be provided by the Energy Efficiency Network and drive it forward, insuring its sustainability after the end of the project.
This deliverable clearly defines the nature and objective of Energy Efficiency Living Labs, their business activities and provides the description on how will the Energy Efficiency Network function and the nature of its activities.
2. Living Lab Ecosystem A new concept supporting the processes of user-driven ICT systems development has started to emerge in Europe; this concept is called Living Labs. This concept started to develop in the late 1990s and one of the first to mention it was the Georgia Institute of Technology, where the technology was developed for capturing a live experience from an educational situation and then provide it to users for later access and review (Abowd 1999). Other areas where Living Labs has been used as a concept have been in tests of new technologies in homelike constructed environments (Markopoulos and Rauterberg 2000). Since then, the concept has grown and, today, one precondition in Living Lab activities is that they are situated in real-world contexts, not constructed laboratory settings.
At this moment, 274 Living Labs are members of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and this network is continuously growing. The members of the network are operating all around the world, but their main residence is in Europe. The rationale behind these Living Labs is to support companies to open up their boundaries toward their environment and to elicit creative ideas and work capabilities existing among different stakeholder. The primary goal of these Living Labs is thus to support the innovation process for all involved stakeholders, from manufacturers to end-users and to do that with users in the centre and in real world contexts. A Living Lab can be defined as an innovation organization that supports the involvement of the whole value chain in the development of innovative services in co-creative activities with users in their real world context.
In open innovation literature the perspective of openness is of concern, firms driving innovation processes to reach for example new products, services or new markets. In Living Labs, usually three dimensions of openness is applied. These are the open mind, open with results and open process. Having an open mind means that individuals involved in the innovation process should be open to take in new perspectives and feedback during the process. Being open with results ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
4
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 refers to the situation where the Living Lab open up their processes and feedback their knowledge to their environment. This is an in-side out perspective on openness. Finally, the open process means that the innovation process should be designed to support continuous and unanticipated input from the surrounding. This is an outside in perspective on openness. Openness can also be seen as an overarching philosophy that is being used as the basis of how various groups and organizations operate.
The development of Living Labs has two main underlying factors; one is the changed use patterns among ICT users; the other is the fact that many traditional ICT development projects carried out in closed environments have failed due to limited and late interaction with the potential market. When we refer to change in use patterns, we mean the transformation that can be discerned among users in the use of ICT for engaging in large user communities, for example in Facebook, Google Earth, Linux, YouTube, and Wikipedia. These all are successful evidence of how users’ joint efforts create valuable assets, such as content, products, services, etc. Hence, users have changed from being passive content consumers to becoming active co-creators of services and content (Følstad 2008b). Based on the assumption that the power of large user communities situated in real-life contexts and built upon public-private partnership (PPP) can support the processes of innovation, the concept of Living Labs has started to get rooted around Europe. To facilitate the build-up phase of these Living Labs around Europe, a network was established in 2006, European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL). Today, this network includes fifty-two Living Labs from eighteen of the twenty-five European member states, and it is still growing.
In the following section a description of the Living Lab concept is given. This starts by a presentation of different definitions of Living Labs. It is followed by a view of the characteristics of Living Lab environments and approaches, and finally a description of the Living Lab environment Defining Living Labs
The concept of Living Labs is a rather new phenomenon that started to emerge around Europe in 2000. During its rapid growth, many somewhat different definitions of the concept Living Labs coexist. Følstad (2008a), in his literature review, offered three categories of Living Labs: 1. Living Labs to experience and experiment with ubiquitous computing; 2. Living Labs as open innovation platforms; and
3. Living Labs exposing test bed applications to the users.
These categories show the range of the Living Labs described in existing Living Lab literature. Eriksson et al (2005) define Living Labs as a research and development methodology whereby innovations, such as services, products, and application enhancements, are created and validated in collaborative, multicontextual empirical real-world settings. This definition implies that humans are considered as the collaborative sources of innovation, not merely involved for ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
5
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 testing and validating products and services. Inherent in this definition is the assumption that the involvement processes should be carried out in real-world settings and in close connection to research. In this definition, the perspective of Living Labs is that it is a methodology.
Ballon et al. (2005), present another definition of Living Labs: “An experimentation environment in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and in which (end) users are considered ‘co-producers’.” (p. 3). This definition gives a slightly different meaning to the concept. Here, the experimentation is stressed and the connection to research is not included. In addition, in this definition, the perspective of the Living Labs has been altered to an environment instead of a methodology. The common ground between these two definitions is the inclusion of users and the relation to real-life contexts. Users are seen as co-creators and the elaboration and co-creation of systems should be carried out in real-life environments. Yet another definition of Living Labs was presented based on the work done in the CoreLabs project. Here, Living Labs is defined as “a system enabling people, users/consumers of services and product, to take active roles as contributors and co-creators in the research, development, and innovation process” (CoreLabs 2007a). In this definition, Living Lab is viewed from a system perspective, and it includes users as active co-creators, but here the real-life multi-contextual environment is excluded. Also in this definition, users are considered to have an active role, and research is included. The system perspective means that there is a system boundary that needs to be defined; related to the system perspective also is the relation between the parts and the whole. Hence, the interrelation among people, products, research, and development process needs to be considered and taken care of. Based on the above definitions, the starting point for any Living Lab is to, in close cooperation among involved stakeholders, develop product and services from the basis of what users really want and need, where the main role of the Living Lab is to engage and empower users to participate in the creation of valuable and viable assets. The interaction with users should be carried out in real-world contexts with active users aiming for innovation in close correlation with ongoing research and development processes. In addition, from my perspective, Living Labs is both an environment and an approach that will be explained in more detail in subsequent sections. Objective of Living Labs
The primary goal of Living Lab environments is to enhance and stimulate European cooperation and innovation in research and development activities. Related to that, the aim of Living Labs is to facilitate user involvement in innovation processes, suggesting an innovation system that is human-centric, in contrast to technology-centric. In these processes, users are invited to participate in the innovation and development process in their own context in authentic usage situations, facilitating the users to gain deep understanding of how a new product or service will function and correlate to their context based ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
6
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 on their own lived experience. Following that line of thoughts, the risk of developing IT systems from a technology driven approach can be reduced in favour of the user-centred approach aiming to consider users’ needs and desires in every development phase (Ståhlbröst and Bergvall-Kåreborn 2008b). In Living Labs the activities go around the clock, since the user involvement process is situated in users’ real-life everyday context (CoreLabs 2006; Eriksson et al. 2005; Fahy, Ponce de Leon, Ståhlbröst, and Schaffers 2007; Mulder, Fahy, Hribernik, Velthausz, Feurstein, Garcia, Schaffers, A, and Ståhlbröst 2007; Ståhlbröst 2006). With such an approach, it follows that users are involved actively in development processes in their own context; hence, the users are facilitated to communicate their needs and requirements on the basis of their everyday experiences. For example, if a user tests a mobile service, s/he can gain understanding of how it functions and fits into his/her usage context at all times and in diverse ordinary situations (Eriksson et al. 2005; Mirijamdotter, Ståhlbröst, Sällström, Niitamo, and Kulkki 2007; Ståhlbröst 2006). Key Elements of Living Labs
To coordinate the on-going activities around Europe toward the establishment of a European Network of Living Labs, a Coordination Action project called CoreLabs was developed and carried out in 2006–2007. In this project, a study among ten of the involved Living Labs was conducted with the aim to gain insights into the Living Lab phenomena. The study was carried out in structured telephone interviews, and the results from this study are reported on in project report D2.1A – Best Practice Report (CoreLabs 2007d). The aim of the interviews was to identify key elements of Living Labs, and four elements were identified. These are:
• Participation and Context: This refers to the participation, not only of the potential users but also of all the relevant stakeholders in the value chain; this has been identified as the most important element for a successful operation of Living Labs. The context refers to the multicontextual sphere in which product and service development takes place. The ability to have close interaction with users in their own context is what separates the Living Lab approach from traditional user involvement.
• Services: This element refers to the services the Living Labs provide to their customers. These customers can be SMEs, industry, researchers, or civic organisations. The services offered include co-creation throughout the whole development process, integration of the customers’ products into the Living Lab, and summarized and standardized data preparation. • Methodology: In Living Labs, many different methods can be applied to involve users in the innovation process. One fundamental aspect to consider when selecting and using methods in a Living Lab is the user
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
7
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 perspective. Users are not considered to be guinea pigs; hence, methods being used must support that view.
• Infrastructure: This element refers to the local infrastructure that is used and promoted. This means that infrastructure can be used to support the process of interacting with users, and also that infrastructure can be the object being developed, tested, and validated in the Living Lab (CoreLabs 2007d).
Based on our understanding of these elements, we think that they represent different abstraction levels or entities. Components in Living Lab Environments
To support the process of understanding what constitutes the basis of a Living Lab environment, we highlight some key components that we interpret as strongly related to a Living Lab environment. These components are described, in report D3.1A – Innovation Aspects, Prerequisites & Requirements from the CoreLabs project, as the roles different stakeholders can play in a Living Lab environment (CoreLabs 2007b). We do not interpret these components as stakeholder roles; instead, we view them as components that are important to include in a Living Lab environment so they can reach their general aim, which is to facilitate user involvement in open innovation processes. In addition, we see these aspects as being observable objects, and as such they can guide the design of a Living Lab environment.
We have rewritten the picture to fit the definition of the components better; for example, the component users replaced the CoreLabs component citizens and workers, since we interpret that those involved in development processes can have other roles than as citizens and workers. In addition, the component partners replaced what the CoreLabs project called Living Lab expertise. This change had its background in my view that the relevant stakeholders are partners, and they are not expected to be experts of Living Labs; instead, they bring in their own area of expertise and, by that, contribute to the Living Lab.
In the CoreLabs report (CoreLabs 2007b), these components are described as follows: citizens and workers represent the end-users, who are viewed as innovation co-creators and valuators. Application environments represent the context in which those users interact and reflect on the real world’s usage scenarios. The technology and infrastructure component outlines the role that new and existing ICT technology can play to facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations among the partners and stakeholders. Organisation and methods relate to proposed standards and methods that emerge as best practices within the Living Labs environment. Finally, the Living Lab expertise that refers to partners who bring their own specific wealth of knowledge and expertise to the collective, helping to achieve higher standards of excellence of every area.
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
8
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
Figure 1 - Key components of a Living Lab
The clear distinction between Living Labs as an environment and as an approach has not been expressed and elaborated on explicitly in any CoreLabs report or other Living Labs literature; hence, it is solely my interpretation of the components character. Founded upon my understanding, a Living Lab environment should have a good relation with, and access to, users willing to be involved in systems development processes. Any Living Lab should also have access to multi-contextual environments, as well as high-end technology and infrastructure that can support both the processes of user involvement and technology development and tests. Each Living Lab environment also needs organisation and methodologies suitable for its specific circumstances. Finally, a Living Lab needs access to a diversity of expertise in terms of different partners, since the scope of Living Lab activities often differ in character. Here, we want to stress that those involved are not obliged to be experts on Living Lab, but rather on their own specific area that can contribute to the Living Labs current activities. However, setting up a Living Lab with all the right components does not guarantee that it becomes a Living Lab; equally important are the key principles of the approaches applied in Living Lab activities. Key Principles of Living Lab Approaches
Adding to the components mentioned above, some key principles that should permeate all Living Lab operations have been generated from the basis of the interviews carried out with Living Lab representatives in the CoreLabs project (CoreLabs 2007a). The key principles that were considered as crucial in Living Lab operations are: Continuity, Openness, Realism, Empowerment of Users, and Spontaneity (CORES), and these are described as follows (CoreLabs 2007a):
• Continuity: This principle is important since good cross-border collaboration, which strengthens creativity and innovation, builds on trust, which takes time to develop.
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
9
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 • Openness: The innovation process should be as open as possible since gathering of many perspectives and bringing enough power to achieve rapid progress is important. The open process also makes its possible to support the process of user-driven innovation, including users wherever and whoever they are.
• Realism: To generate results that are valid for real markets, it is necessary to facilitate as realistic use situations and behaviour as possible. This principle also is relevant since focusing on real users, in real-life situations, is what distinguishes Living Labs from other kinds of open co-creation environments, such as Second Life.
• Empowerment of users: The engagement of users is fundamental in order to bring the innovation process in a desired direction based on human needs and desires. Living Labs efficiency is based on the creative power of user communities; hence, it becomes important to motivate and empower the users to engage in these processes. • Spontaneity: In order to succeed with new innovations, it is important to inspire usage, meet personal desires, and both fit and contribute to societal and social needs. Here, it becomes important to have the ability to detect, aggregate, and analyse spontaneous users’ reactions and ideas over time.
Living Labs arise from the need to support innovation over disciplinary boundaries and technologies. With this multi-contextual approach, it follows that many divergent Living Labs coexist and represent specific disciplines, and also that many Living Labs exist across communities and regions, thus incorporating a mixture of disciplines or objectives. During the CoreLabs project, eleven different Living Labs were identified, for example, Rural Living Labs, Media Living Labs, and Learning Living Labs. It is important to note here that none of the existing Living Labs are solely representing one, but are more likely to cross over between these domains, and a few of them cross over most of the Living Labs. Important Stakeholders in Living Lab Contexts
There also are a number of stakeholders important to include, or at least consider, in Living Lab initiatives. In the CoreLabs project (CoreLabs 2007b), relevant stakeholders were identified. The relevant stakeholders who give input to Living Lab activities are: • Academia and research organisations. These are key stakeholders in determining the efficacy of collaborative validation approaches.
• SMEs. These are considered the chief beneficiaries of the environment of increased innovation and competitiveness fostered through the Living Lab approach.
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
10
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 • Business Industry and Service on broader scale. These stakeholders can have an interest in market trends and business practices that emerge from close collaboration with players in that field. • Civic Sector and End Users, These users will play a critical role in the validation environment that drives innovation.
• ICT professionals. These stakeholders have an important stake in the technical aspect and requisites for a project of this scope or nature. • Public Partners. Their aim is to drive the development and innovation in a specific region in order to encourage enterprises and industry, and attract specific resident groups.
The diversity of the stakeholders and the scope of the interests that they encompass demonstrate the complete co-creation approach that Living Labs embraces. Success Factors for Living Labs
A Living Labs objective is to enable sustainable, collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and user-relevant innovation. Hence, it can be assumed that the success of the Living Lab can be measured broadly in terms of the following four elements (CoreLabs 2007b) .
• Innovation: Living Labs aspire to stimulate creativity and innovation; hence, its main success will be measured against quantifiable, accepted, and sustainable innovations. In the Living Lab context, three measurable innovation success metrics exist, the three Ps (CoreLabs 2007b). - Number of peer-reviewed Publications - Number of legally held Patents
- Number of Products that reach the market
• Collaboration: It has become obvious, since cooperation is one important facilitator for innovation, that collaboration among as many participating stakeholders as possible and also with different combinations of stakeholders is an important measure of success of Living Labs. Here, it is important to look at the maturity of the collaboration to stimulate positive outcome of the collaboration.
• Multi-Contextuality: Another important success factor is the context. By introducing an environment of multiple and diverse dimensions, users can contribute, evaluate, and be evaluated in real-life situations. This perspective takes user participation to a new level of multiple and merging contexts. • Sustainability: To determine long-term success, sustainability becomes an important indicator. In the Living Lab context sustainability can be measured in terms of: ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
11
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 - Durable employment creation - Inclusion and equality issues
- Competitiveness
It is important to note here the significant relevance the Living Lab must offer to its location, intended audience, and stakeholders (CoreLabs 2007b). Again, the context is of great importance, but in this case, it is the Living Labs context, the region and society, that must be considered and in which the Living Lab must fit. Reflecting on the relation between the success elements for Living Labs, and the key components for Living Lab operations, we interpret that the Spontaneity principle can be related to the element Innovation, Continuity can be related to Collaboration, Realism can be related to the element Multi-contextuality, and Empowerment of users and Sustainability can be interpreted as related to each other. However, one important principle, openness, cannot be related to any success factor for Living Labs. We do not have any suggestion for how this principle could be measured since this is beyond the scope of this thesis, but we interpret it as an important aspect to handle in the future for Living Lab environments.
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
12
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
3. The Importance of Crossborder Activities Apollon Energy Efficiency experiments proved the value of the cross-border activities for Living Lab stakeholders. Summarised from the business and technology perspective, the cross-border activities provided the following benefits: 1. An increased awareness of opportunities in European Union for companies – both funding and market opportunities 2. Increased awareness of socio-technical factors and their impact on business
3. Contribution to the internal development in different contexts
4. Knowledge transfer and actual site visits during roadshows, providing most value 5. Apollon meetings arranged jointly with other EU programs expanded the networking and learning opportunities for partners 6. Tools and methodologies available at Living Lab network 7. Creation of Energy Efficiency network
8. Increasing interest in companies to do further research with the research partners and Living Labs 9. Access to the users and recommendations for improving the product or service
10. Research serving as a market study, as a feasibility study and as a business reference
11. The experiments deepened the cooperation relationships with partners
12. An experiment in one Living Lab can lead to replication at and entry to another Living Lab based on established relationships.
The knowledge transfer and cross-border benchmarking were cited as the most important features of Living Labs. Knowledge Transfer methodology developed and utilized in Apollon WP3 consisted of the following cross-border activities: •
• • • •
User behaviour transformation methodology, the benchmark for crossborder case methodology Competence transfer and monitoring with regular face-to-face workshops and conference calls
Dissemination among WP3 partners via sharing of case studies, existing research, and research results
Road shows open to local ecosystems, arranged adjacent to project meetings Site visits and demonstrations of each experiment and partner
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
13
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 The main outcome, Apollon methodology for user behavior transformation, exchanged best practices from local and cross-border pilots regarding userbehavior change mechanisms and measurements. Partners documented and shared their experiences in measuring energy consumption changes among endusers when experimenting with new ICT solutions for energy saving. From an overarching perspective the process for the case was designed in three steps where it started with a presentation of the case and a template was distributed among the teams to ensure that all cases were reported in the same format. In this case, the local pilots from all four sites were used as a basis for sharing experiences. These cases were discussed and analyzed jointly in workshops in which all WP3 participants were invited and participated. The results from these knowledge-sharing workshops were then analyzed and the results formed the basis for the unified methodology for use transformation presented in the end of this report. Furthermore, all living labs answered a questionnaire at the end of the work. Energy Efficiency experiments used several methods to support the cross-border knowledge sharing process: usage of local pilots, a template to describe the experiments, a test storyline, the workshops and a survey study carried out in the case. All these methods together comprised the cross-border case methodology. Cross-border activities support dissemination of innovations from SMEs to large corporations to public sector, supporting European Innovation Union and Horizon 2020 objectives. Furthermore, the network of Living Labs can increase the efficiency of societal transformation targeted by the public financing instruments.
4. The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) is the international federation of benchmarked Living Labs in Europe and worldwide. Founded in November 2006 under the auspices of the Finnish European Presidency, the network has grown in ‘waves’ up to this day. To this date, 5 Waves have been launched, resulting in 274 accepted Living Labs and the 6th Wave is currently in progress. The ENoLL international non-profit association, as the legal representative entity of the network, is headquartered in Brussels, at the heart of Europe.
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
14
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
5. APOLLON Energy Efficiency Network 5.1 Preliminary organizational model The Energy Efficiency thematic domain network is open to the Living Labs that are active in this domain. Any Living Lab or organization that is a member of ENoLL can be involved in the Energy Efficiency Network. Also, organizations and individuals that are part of the Ecosystem of a Living Lab which is a member of ENoLL can be associated with the Energy Efficiency Domain Network. The APOLLON Energy Efficiency Domain Network will be part of the Thematic Sub Group on Energy Efficiency, Sustainable Energy and Climate Change, under the coordination of the Work Group on Thematic Domain Living Labs (see Figure 2).
ENoLL
Work Groups
Thematic Sub Groups
Council
Thematic Domain Living Labs Energy Efficiency Sustainable Energy Climate change
Well Being and Health
(...) (...)
APOLLON Energy Efficency Thematic Domain Network
Figure 2 - Organization Model of the Thematic Domain Network under ENoLL
5.2 Scope The European Commission has adopted an Action Plan aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 levels (or by 30% if the conditions are right), increase the share of renewable energy in final energy consumption to 20%, and achieve a 20% increase in energy efficiency. This is the 20-20-20 strategy. The role of buildings in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is emphasized, as they represent around 40% of all energy use, through introducing minimum requirements for the energy performance of buildings.
In November 2009, European Union lawmakers agreed that all new buildings would have to comply with energy-performance standards, and supply a significant share of their energy requirements from renewable sources by 2020. The public sector must lead the way through buildings with "nearly zero" energy standards by the end of 2018. Reducing energy consumption and eliminating energy wastage are among the main goals of the European Union. The European Commission has set five main strategic objectives: ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
15
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 1. Europe for energy efficiency
2. Integrated Pan-European Market
3. Assure Europe’s Energy Security
4. Become the leader in technology and innovation
5. Strengthen the external aspect of the European energy market
Energy Efficiency is the only horizontal domain that addresses all the 5 strategic objectives and therefore has and will continue to have a crucial role in European policy. Nevertheless, there is great market fragmentation which has resulted in the local lockdown of solutions and products, restricting them to specific SMEs, and also several interoperability issues between member states regarding energy systems and equipment as well as regulatory differences.
Therefore, the Energy Efficiency Thematic Domain Network has a key role to play in the cross-border aspect for energy efficiency, helping SMEs to reach new markets, promote partnerships between SMEs, Universities, Municipalities and Research Institutions and fostering RD&I.
The matchmaking of partnerships and the cross-border support between organizations which are part of the Living Lab ecosystem are the main roles of the thematic network. The main focus of the network will be centred in the sharing of best practices and success cases between Living Labs, in order to promote excellence in the domain network and guidance for new Living Labs joining the network.
5.3 Challenges
The establishment of a Living Lab which acts in the area of Energy Efficiency and/or the promotion of cross-border activities between organizations has four main challenges: -
-
-
Lack of Interoperability of information systems, to cope with the growing mobility of European citizens, both at the national and international levels, resulting in product and/or solution lockdown, IPR issues, etc.
The fragmentation of stakeholders and technological solutions in the energy efficiency market, throughout the value chain, conflict with proprietary solutions, lack of critical mass for SMEs, etc.
Local market, legal and regulatory particularities: the domain of energy efficiency health is subject to regulations that differ from country to country. Therefore performing projects in this domain does not only require a thorough insight in these aspects but also implies that often specific procedures need to be followed (e.g. equipment certification). This offers also a bottleneck in the feasibility for cross-border pilots. Setting up mirror projects or simply transferring one set-up from one context to the other is only possible if it is assessed and adjusted to these
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
16
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
-
local rules. Also, different degrees of unbundling of the energy networks lead to totally different business model feasibility, thus requiring local knowledge for cross-border actions to succeed, particularly at business level.
Establishing relations of trust: to support clusterization and gain in momentum, a Living Lab in Energy Efficiency needs to bring together all the stakeholders on its ecosystem, promoting networking in Business-toBusiness relationships throughout the value chain of energy services and products at the local or cross-border level. Also, the facilitation of partnerships between RD&I institutions, Universities, municipalities or other stakeholders is the key to allow for a business-friendly environment of trust at the Living Lab ecosystem level.
5.4 Objectives
The objectives of a community of Living Labs operating in a network within the domain of Energy Efficiency are in general threefold. First it has to be an environment in which the various partners can share best practices and success cases; second it also has to be an active community that provides its members with useful methods and tools. Finally the community needs be collaborative, establishing cross-border interactions between Living Labs or between organizations of distinct Living Labs facilitated by the Living Labs. A. A sharing community -
-
-
The objective to establish the exchange of knowledge and experiences with regard to Living Labs in the Energy Efficiency. Here a specific focus will have to be on operational issues encountered during Living Lab projects and how they were handled successfully;
Within this knowledge sharing, there has to be a specific focus on identifying proven methods to get Living Labs involved in collaboration. This has not only to be facilitated in an electronic way (knowledge repository, newsletters, etc.) but also has to be the scope of face-to-face events (workshops, conferences, networking events, etc.);
Beyond the own community, the network also has to act as an ambassador of the Living Lab movement. They will have to promote the Living Labs as a useful and attractive tool for innovation and service development for Energy Efficiency-related projects and initiatives.
B. An active community •
First, the network of Living Labs, need to address specific needs of the community with regard to user driven innovation in the domain. These issues (e.g. energy consumption data anonymity, European
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
17
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
•
•
Standardization in energy, etc.) are the subject of the various activities of the Network (events, taskforces, etc.);
Subsequently, based on this need-identification, the network of Living Labs will have to create different taskforces that focus on the development of specific Living Lab tools, methods and techniques specifically targeting the challenges of the domain of Energy Efficiency (e.g. best practices for cross-border testing of products and services, national regulatory guidelines, etc.) Thirdly, the Energy Efficiency network needs to be a facilitator for crossborder transfer of technology, research and business, allowing for organizations of distinct Living Labs to establish trust-based relationships (e.g. business, exploration of new markets with innovative products and services).
C. A collaborative community •
•
The network of Living Labs in Energy Efficiency has to be a collaborative community, striving for the clusterization of organizations in their specific domains. Each Living Lab must have an updated registry of their ecosystem at all times in the Domain Network electronic platform, in order to promote national and cross-border collaboration; The Network has to enable an easy access to the various Energy Efficiency eco-systems all over Europe. By so, stakeholders, public and private partners, are able to set-up large-scale, comparative cross-border projects.
5.5 Domain Network Services offered to Living Labs and SMEs
Based on the survey answered by Energy Efficiency-related Living Labs (see Annex 5) and the APOLLON results in cross-border experiments, the services that the Network will provide to its members are: • •
•
Matchmaking for projects: Living Lab registry, with description of organizations, areas of expertise, portfolio of projects, etc.;
Benchmarking platform: Living Labs and their organizations will have a knowledge repository for technologies, services, products, integrated solutions, business models, etc., referenced in order to facilitate matchmaking; Activating the Network: as it is already done by ENoLL, but particularly concerning Energy Efficiency matters, the Network will keep its members up to date with European Calls & Tenders, and important events, in order
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
18
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
•
•
to promote visibility of the member Living Labs and facilitate partnerships;
Engaging the Network: integrated in ENoLL events, the Domain Networks will have their part to play, with thematic domain workshops, roadshows and seminars (e.g. ENoLL Summer School); Advertisement Board: Living Labs which are oriented for product testing and experimentation who which to harbour product or service testing will be able to advertise their availability and terms;
Knowledge Repository: interactive online tool for member Living Labs, allowing for each member to contribute with best practices, record of products and services, academic publications, etc. The Repository will receive inputs when a Living Lab becomes member of the Network, by means of an inventory to be filled by each participating stakeholder in the eco-system (Living Lab, SME, Academic partner or Public Organization) referring core activities, examples of projects and/or pilots established, specific infrastructures, technology platforms (test-beds), tools, methods and techniques. Also, stakeholders providing enduser services or business-to-business solutions will describe their activities and specializations as well as business domains (in order to facilitate matchmaking between stakeholders), cross-border partnerships or international experience cases should also be described; this should be regularly updated by the Living Lab.
5.6 Resources
The resources of the Energy Efficiency Thematic Domain Network will stem from those available to ENoLL Work Groups, namely those available to Effective and Adherent members 1. Services ENoLL Label Living Labs that passed wave qualification are granted to use the ENoLL label as a proof of certification (logo pack and membership certificate) and they will be listed as ENoLL recognized Living Labs on the OpenLivingLabs website Network Contact Point
ENoLL Office (based in Brussels) serves as the contact point for all members of the network for internal and external partners inquiries, providing the basic network secretarial services in order to support the networking activities and information flow among the members. 1
Learn more about ENoLL at www.openlivinglabs.eu
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
19
Effective
Adherent
X
X
X
X
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 Communication and Promotion Services Monthly Newsletter
Promotion through ENoLL catalogue of Labs/repository in OpenLivingLabs website
Living
Promotion through ENoLL Dissemination channels (website, newsletter, Facebook, twitter)
EU information relay (funding, strategy, events) in the members section
Access to basic communication information in the ENoLL members section (generic funding, Working groups, member events, etc.)
X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X
Project Development Services
Support in project consortium building
X
*
Direct ENoLL participation in proposals
X
*
Endorsement and support letters to proposals
X
Performing tasks on behalf of ENoLL in funded projects (ENoLL distribution of tasks) Brokering Services
X
Market place to offer your Living Lab services (and services to Living Labs) internally to other members (virtual tool to be developed)
X
Brokering and partners/parties
X
Access to professional communities for best practices: extract, validate, edit, publish and share practises and success stories emerging from individual and networked Living Lab innovation actions
X
Information Brokering (searching and relaying specific info to our members specially related to funding possibilities, alliances, partners, etc.)
X
partnerships
with
external
* *
Policy and Governance services
Right to stand for elections to the ENoLL Council
X
Direct contribution and access to ENoLL Policy actions
X
Possibility to Chair a working group or a thematic domain
Learning and Educational services
Access to ENoLL workshops and educational activities ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
20
X
X
* Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 * Adherent members can occasionally receive these services under certain conditions (e.g. Effective or Associated member not found, specific support to very strategic projects and programmes (under Project WG assessment), etc.)
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
21
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
5.7 Business Model The overall business model identified for the APOLLON Domain Networks consider the role of ENoLL as final addressee of these network after Project completion. -
-
-
-
The Living Labs participating in the Network (core Living Labs) are ENoLL Members and directly support the Domain with membership fee (unless ENoLL itself decides for a different dealing for specific organizations);
ENoLL will support the Domain Networks for all the administrative functions (such as communications, Member managing, website management etc.);
The basic Services for the different Domain Networks are provided by identified Core Living Labs on a voluntary basis (networking and connection services, workshop organization, establishment of task forces and opportunity creation); The Domain Network services are divided on a three levels of access:
o 1st level: networking for cross border collaboration, first evaluation on SMEs needs and expectations for operating in the domain (info on best practices & networking & match making for proposals & basic feasibility);
o 2nd level: access to Domain Network dedicated Services (i.e. consulting services) by accessing APOLLON Market place gateway;
-
o 3rd level: establishment of specific collaboration for building projects and consortia partnerships
SMEs access the Domain Network by connecting with core Living Labs. For setting up specific agreements and partnerships for projects a cost can be claimed to SMEs by ENoLL.
The description of the overall Business Model is identified in this general part both to underline the role of ENoLL in this Network (for their running and sustainability aspects) and also to report an overlay background common for all the Domain Networks. 5.7.1 DOMAIN NETWORK 2ND LEVEL SERVICE ACCESS: THE APOLLON MARKET PLACE
The access of specific Domain Network services is granted by a dedicated platform where these services are described and accessible (based on detailed information and prices or request for quotation). ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
22
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 The service marketplace consumes and exposes services described in the Unified Service Description language. It therefore demonstrates the benefits arising from USDL, especially taking the provider and the customer perspective into account.
APOLLON project marketplace wants to offer an Internet-based platform to the domain networks of Living Labs, in its 1st stage it will be implemented to the domain networks of APOLLON, first to the eManufacturing experiment (WP4) and then to the other three vertical domains.
Service providers (in particular SMEs) often act within tight budget boundaries, especially for investments in market research, for business development or for promotion/marketing. Thus APOLLON project marketplace wants to offer mechanisms that support trading your services across borders in new target markets, In particular when you need to find early adopters and future customers for new products/s in a market you are not familiar with, where you would need local partners who know the business environment. APOLLON project marketplace offers help to moderate the processes of finding the right partners, users and future customers to incubate business collaboration. The main focus of trading in the services industry is on electronic services (e.g. web services for electronic device integration, remote maintenance services) an Internet-based platform or marketplace may also cater for B2B services that require local/on-site interaction (e.g. consulting or set-up of systems). APOLLON trading platform or marketplace can provide support for: -
-
-
Describing a service from a technical and business oriented view;
Describing and publishing the request for a service, help, support...
Offering and selling software / modules via a web channel (web shop)
Finding local partners providing relevant on-site interaction with a user/customer Finding market-compliant local technical components
Feedback collection and publishing about a service
The APOLLON Market place will be accessible through ENoLL website where the Domain Network section (transferred by APOLLON project) will be included. This platform is with the APOLLON Knowledge base and the Platform for SMEs involvement among the results the project will transfer to ENoLL after conclusion (May 2012).
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
23
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
6. Core Members of the Energy Efficiency Network
Lisbon Residential Living Lab
The purpose of the Lisbon Residential Living Lab, created during the APOLLON project, is to implement energy efficiency measures in private households through behavioural change, to test the effect on users of implementing smart metering technology and remote management tool software in the reduction of energy consumption, to promote and prove the feasibility of investing in residential housing energy efficiency, and to achieve viable and profitable solutions for energy management and communication.
Lisboa E-Nova, Lisbon’s Energy and Environmental Agency, compared the use of smart metering combined with a strong dissemination activity and informative billing. This activity in the Lisbon Living Lab meets the agency commitment to contribute to sustainable development by the systematic and continuous improvement of the energy and environmental performance of the city. Amsterdam Smart City
The Amsterdam region has an excellent broadband infrastructure, many international companies involved in design and several world class knowledge institutions. The creative industry is present through many (small) design companies. The population is well educated, internationally oriented and eager to try new products and services. The foundation for a strong position in the design of experience is present.
Challenge for the future is to design the experience with a strong focus and understanding of the fickle user. Technical improvements are often not the most determining factor for success of failure. Social aspects and experience are decisive in the outcome of new introductions. More and more content is produced by consumers themselves. Services consist of complex combinations of other services, linked together through advanced ICT, assembled and configured by users themselves. This all leads to the conclusion that design and develop processes must be redesigned with the new realities in mind. The Amsterdam Living Lab is the approach to establish the European Center for design and development of products and services in the area of ICT and new media. ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
24
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 This is done by a strong focus on tools, methodologies and knowledge on measuring and understanding behaviour and experience. And by creating processes with a strong link between design and understanding real life behaviour of users. By creating this knowledge and test infrastructure Amsterdam can increase its position as the place to be for design and development of the experience. Understanding users and connecting to designers. Focus is on building a sustainable company that will deliver services on measuring behaviour and experience with strong ties in the academic community and a firm base in commercial clients. The focus areas of the Amsterdam Living Lab are Mobility, New Media, and Co-creative Design, Environmental Durability, E-Health, Social Cohesion and Tourism.
The Amsterdam Living Lab is supported by the city of Amsterdam through the Amsterdam Innovatie Motor (AIMsterdam.nl), Amsterdam Topstad, the citizens of Amsterdam and works together with world class knowledge institutes (as the University of Amsterdam, Telematica Instituut and The Waag Society), companies (IBM, Nuon, PWC, KPN, Logica, Philips, Accenture, CONTINUON, NUON, Cisco). The Amsterdam Living Lab is financially supported the National Government (Ministry of Economic Affairs) and has the interest of the Dutch Innovation Platform, a national initiative chaired by the prime. Botnia Living Lab
Botnia Living Lab is an environment for human-centric research, and the development and innovation of new ICT-based services. Botnia started in 2000 and has matured from a test-bed to a real-life laboratory, powered by more than 6000 co-creative pilot users. Today Botnia is a world-leading environment for user centric research, development and innovation (RDI), instrumented by methods, tools and experts and a web-portal (www.testplats.com), for interaction with user groups.
With its focus on advanced IT services and products, Botnia’s strategy is to be independent from (geographically) fixed assets and essentially, service experimentation relying on readily available hardware and communication infrastructure. Botnia’s track record includes application areas such as: mobile marketing, traffic information, energy saving, sports and culture, e-democracy and security. This image cannot currently be displayed.
Helsinki Living Lab
The Aalto living lab building is a good example of Finland’s office building as ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
25
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7 commonly built in the 1990’s when energy awareness was not yet such a hot topic. Together with the building owner and superintendent some of the most vital energy consumption points were mapped out. The building was originally chosen as an energy saving living lab because of the owner’s need to mitigate the energy consumption in all the like buildings and, as the chosen building is also the head quarter for Process Vision, it was quite easy to start testing the different measurement solutions as the immediate vicinity provided quick response times to the needed configurations for the meters themselves. The stakeholders in the Aalto living lab were; living Lab owner Aalto University who take part through partner co-ordination as well as providing academic input; and Process Vision, who are the driving force in making the living lab process run smoothly and efficiently. Also, being a corporate entity, Process Vision has the vision and motivation to make the living lab operations into a profitable and scalable new business model. The last stakeholder is the building owner VARMA from whom the initial choice of the current location as the living lab has come. VARMA is the partner who can objectively value the different solutions and judge the added value in all of them. Goal of the living lab was to test technical solutions on the metering side, but also, and more importantly, to see how energy savings can be achieved through smart metering and user involvement. The energy savings achieved will benefit the energy markets as a whole, but also, through monetary gain, the building owner/users. The points of interest in energy usage reductions are: Curbing unnecessary energy consumption peaks, mitigation of base load and downshifting of consumption profiles.
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
26
Final Version
Apollon - D.3.7
ANNEX 1 - ENoLL Living Labs From the 35 ENoLL Living Labs which have energy-related activities in their portfolio, the following table presents those which have shown interest in integrating the launch core group of the Energy Efficiency Network from APOLLON. Amsterdam Smart City
www.amsterdamsmartcity.nl
Netherlands
Bird Living Lab
www.beingbird.com
Spain
Botnia Living Lab
www.testplats.com
Sweden
Digital Birmingham
www.digitalbirmingham.co.uk
UK
EDP/Brasil LL
www.edpbr.com.br
Brazil
Flemish Living Lab Platform
www.flemishlivinglabplatform.com
Belgium
iHomeLab Living Lab
www.iHomeLab.ch
China
Lighting Living Lab
www.lighting-living-lab.pt
Portugal
SI Lab
www.ncl.ac.uk/nubs/staff/rob.wilson
UK
Telecommunication Networks and Integrated Services (TNS) Laboratory http://tns.ds.unipi.gr/
Greece
Trentino as a Lab - TASLAB
www.taslab.eu
Italy
UbiLL
-
Portugal
ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
27
Final Version