China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Product Service Systems Innovation and Design
Published in Shatha N. Samman, Human Factors and Ergonomics for the Gulf Cooperation Council, 2018
Girish Prabhu, Beena Prabhu, Atul Saraf
Participatory design: apart from the field and center-based research and ideation agenda involving the partners and members, it is important to create living labs consisting of user panels, not only as an arena for co-creation but also as an arena for understanding future user behaviors. The aim of the living labs is to create a setting for continuous engagement in co-creation, exploration, and evaluation of novel ways of designing for transition, by providing a consistent group of lead users as stakeholders in the process (see Figure 6.11). Living labs allow the design, building, and utilization of novel technology and services as cultural probes, very close to actual-use settings. Living labs can also utilize prototyped new technologies and services to understand changes in user behavior.5
European competitiveness; new business and work paradigms supported by the EU research
Published in Manuel Martínez, Raimar Scherer, eWork and eBusiness in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, 2020
At the end of an innovation process when launching a new service or product, companies are anticipating a fast and broad take up of the market. However, experience proves that new technology is not always appreciated by the public due to poor usability, access and design. The Living Labs provide a new environment for industry to not only test prototypes at the end of the innovation process, but also to receive valuable feed back and new ideas for products and services, an environment that allows citizens to influence the product development through close cooperation with the company.
Renewable energy Living Labs through the lenses of responsible innovation: building an inclusive, reflexive, and sustainable energy transition
Published in Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2023
Inês Campos, Esther Marín-González
Living Labs have the potential of bringing to the foreground the ethical importance of responsibility, considering the future impacts of today’s technological and social change, and the need for fostering inclusive and reflexive participatory processes that can trigger advancements in social, economic and environmental sustainability (Adam and Groves 2011). As an open space for discussion, LLs can equally offer a means to deliberate on different visions for a sustainable future (e.g. between economic green growth and degrowth (Nelson and Edwards 2020)), and address underlining differences in value perceptions (Martin, Evans, and Karvonen 2018). For instance, considering the different geographies of renewable energy, a large-scale solar or wind energy project may be considered unsustainable by some, due to its inevitable environmental impacts on local biodiversity, while others would still support such projects based on the need for a fast decarbonisation (Fast 2013). LLs can equally offer the grounds to openly discuss and find trade-offs on different value perceptions of what sustainability means, including economic externalities of renewables (e.g. the need for extensive mining) and the social impacts of large-scale installations for local populations and their livelihoods (Calvert 2016). As the energy transition picks us speed, research is needed that investigates how these complex problems can be addressed by LLs in order to better understand their potential to offer a forum for discussing different value perceptions and trade-offs, across multiple stakeholder interests.
Shifting Participatory Design Approaches for Increased Resilience
Published in IISE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 2021
Steven C. Mallam, Kjetil Nordby, Per Haavardtun, Hanna Nordland, Tine Viveka Westerberg
This experience has made us look beyond the traditional methods of collecting user-centered inputs to differing knowledge transfer opportunities that could be utilized across the larger design project. From predominantly focusing on discrete-event based data collections and milestones toward a more dynamic and resilient approach to user-centered and participatory processes, OpenBridge is increasingly resembling a living lab for maritime innovation (see Figure 4). Living labs are user-centered and open innovation ecosystems, which are based on a co-creation approach and interface between research and innovation that is situated in real-world problems and contexts (Dell’Era & Landoni, 2014). A living lab can be broadly defined as “a real-life test and experimentation environment where users and producers co-create innovations” (European Network of Living Labs, 2015). Living labs offer a unique opportunity to explore approaches for behavior change in a broadly considered context. Solutions are developed that not only facilitate or discourage specific user activities in isolation, but that holistically support change of entire, highly complex social practices, ensuring lasting behavior change (European Network of Living Labs, 2015). Thus, connecting the different specific UCD and communication methods across the differing interaction dimensions within a co-creative living lab creates a more open ecosystem for collaboration and resilience in continuous interactions.
Consumer integration in supply chain management: a taxonomy
Published in Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal, 2021
Paul J. Reaidy, Olivier Lavastre, Blandine Ageron, Ludivine Chaze-Magnan
Finally, consumer integration by research and development is present in the three dimensions of taxonomy (Information sharing, shared decision-making and alignment of goals). It concerns variables such as interactivity & consumer feedback, knowledge sharing and customisation & personalisation. We note that consumer integration in R&D domain can be considered similar to the user integration notion in the living lab approach. In fact, living lab represents a user-centric innovation approach for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real-life contexts. Continuity, openness, realism, empowerment of users and spontaneity are the key principles of this approach (Bergvall-Kåreborn and Ståhlbröst 2009). Thus, the end-user’s role shifts from research object to a pro-active position where user communities are co-creators of product and service innovations. (Wolfert et al. 2010). The difference between lab living and consumer integration approach is that user integration in living lab focuses mainly on R&D process while the consumer integration scope is broad and comprehensive. It concerns many SC processes like R&D, planning and distribution.