Apollon Final Report Also, SME solutions should be sufficiently flexible to enable the integration in the living lab ecosystem; agile approaches to prototyping and testing should be encouraged while working with a living lab. One of the conclusions of this pilot is that, for SMEs looking for internationalisation or market expansion, Living Labs should not fulfil the role of “salesman” however could act as single point of contact getting in touch with local living lab ecosystems. Much like other pilots (energy efficiency, homecare and assisted living) the eParticipation and Social Media pilot stresses the importance of knowledge transfer to address partner’s needs and based on partners’ skills. It is proposed to set up a platform facilitating knowledge exchange and reusing existing methods and tools, and to pay more attention to training sessions as a means to transfer knowledge among partners and to develop sustainable relations.
7 APOLLON pilot experiments: Lessons Learned All pilots have identified recommendations based on their pilot evaluations. The following summarizes and integrates a number of key recommendations targeting cross-border settings and facilitating the set-up and operation of cross-border living labs networks, i.e.: 1) Apply the phasing approach contextualized to the pilot environment. Most pilots applied the general phasing model (connect, plan and engage, support and govern, manage and track) to establish a framework for research and innovation in the pilot environment. The phasing model is found very valuable to guide experimentation but always needs contextualisation to the demands of the pilot. 2) The initial “connect” phase is critical but more attention is necessary. Due to that fact that the vertical pilots started after APOLLON was approved, less attention was paid to the “connect” phase. Important decisions are taken in this phase such as partner finding, consortium building and planning of the project. Selection of the right business partners includes discussing the requirements and agreeing on solutions. Some of the difficulties experienced in the pilots later on e.g. collaboration bottlenecks can be attributed to decisions made before the actual pilot started. 3) For successful transfer and adoption, take into account “soft issues”. Such issues include trust, privacy, liability, ethics, safety, and regulatory issues when transferring a technology. This recommendation especially stems from pilot work in Homecare and independent living. Transferring a technology implies issues of acceptance and adoption in other contexts; especially in healthcare this is a key issue. The eManufacturing pilot demonstrates that transparency, trust and an easy access to any type of information regardless if the SME is a service provider or a potential service consumer – is crucial to start running new business engagements. 4) Carefully build and maintain the living labs ecosystem. The Living Lab eco system ensures the required conditions for product or service co-development. Both Homecare and eParticipation and Social Media pilot have worked on building and maintaining the living labs ecosystem, including defining the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders and partners. The roles, responsibilities, competencies and skills of living labs need specific attention as living labs fulfil a critical role in the ecosystem. Skills and competences upgrading will be necessary in many cases. The pilots demonstrate new demands to Living labs e.g. active mediating roles in the eParticipation and Social Media pilot. The eManufacturing pilot demands relying on the local Living Lab having the knowledge of and contacts to reliable local partners, having checked them before inviting them into a new business relation. 5) Define and agree on requirements at early stage. The eManufacturing pilot is an example where requirement findings is carried out in a relatively simple cross-border ICT PSP Project Reporting Template
26
Final Version
