1. Participation inLiving Lab Designing systemswith users Professor Birgitta Bergvall-Kreborn [email_address]

2. A Living Lab Project

A research collaboration between Sweden, Norway, and Northern Ireland founded by EU

Aims tocontribute towards the health and wellbeing of the ageing population in peripheral and remote communities (specifically Sweden, Norway and Northern Ireland)through the development and use ofmobile ICT products and services.

Focuses on safety, well-being, and social networks

3. A Living Lab Project

Living Lab is a human-centric research and development approach where ICT innovations are co-created and tested in open, collaborative, multi-contextual real-world settings(Bergvall-Kreborn and Sthlbrst 2009.

Bergvall-Kreborn, B., and A. Sthlbrst. 2009. Living Lab: An Open and Citizen-Centric Approach for Innovation.International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development1 (4):356-370. 4. The FormIT Methodology

A development methodology specifically designed for Living Lab environments and approaches

5. A Living Lab Project

Openness for all project participants

As realistic processes and activities as possible

Influence by all project participants , but especially for the elderly

Sustainability in the services developed (users, technology, business)

Value creation for all stakeholders

6. A Living Lab Project

Openness

• Open mindsets betweencountries, roles and knowledge and occupational groups

• Open knowledge transfer within the project

• Open access to data

Elderly people

• People participating in earlier related projects

• Peopleactive in elderly organisations

• People with clear needs in the selected areas

Health care professionals

• General practitioners

• Nurces

• Physiotherapists

IT companies (big and small)

Researchers

7. A Living Lab Project

Realism

• Build on the actual needs of the users

• Capture needs as they come to mind or arise

• Prototyping as development methodology

• Testing in realistic contexts and as far as possible

8. A Living Lab Project

Influence

• Influence the framing of the project.

• • Include the users (elderly people and health professionals) in the actual writing of the research application.

• Build the services on the needs of the users

• Different types of methods were different groups are more active

• Multi-stakeholder meeting were everybody can participate in the development of the services

Support for Safety -A need to know that someone would notice if anything happens to me and I need help

I do not know if I feel unsafe so often. But I think about these things since I live alone. If something should happen. There are heart attacks and stroke.

9. A Living Lab Project

Sustainability

• Need-based approach

• Balance between user needs, technical progress, business possibilities

10. A Living Lab Project

Value

• Users

• • Influence societal and organizational development

• • Get their needs satisfied

• Companies (especially SME) and Public sector

• • Access to resources (infrastructure, methods, user base, )

• • New ideas, outsourcing of activities, early marketing,

• • User validated outcomes(products and services)

• Researchers

• • Extended networks and access to real world cases

11. Safety alarm for outdoor activities MOBILT TRYGGHETSLARM ORDINERAD EGENVRD SOCIAL A NTVERK Gun Svensson STNG AV 12. Well-being and prescribed health care 13. Lessons Learnt

Safety Alarm

• Creates a feeling of safety

• Makes it possible to be mobile; go to the summer house or walk in the woods without beeing worried

• with a phone like this I would be able to cycle again

14. Lessons Learnt

Well-being

• Resulted in an increased awareness of their personal health

• Resulted in some changes in behavior, but this is hard even with increased awareness

• Resulted in a closer relation between health professionals and elderly people

• I get up in the morning and then I go the round with myself. I take my medicine and then I check my blood pressure and weight and send the values to my doctor.

15. Lessons Learnt

Users as partners

• Hard for user to be partners since they are not legal bodies. Due to this they could not be given access to the project coordinator where all information was stored.

• They are partners but still they are not, they do not have any real obligations.

• We made more assumptions about the users compare to the other partners; what they liked/disliked, what activities they wanted/did not want to participate in, and what they found easy/hard to understand, etc.

16. Lessons Learnt

Users as partners

• There are many reasons for users to be involved in the development of new ICT services and systems. Not all of them are grounded in an interest in technology and technological development, not even in satisfying personal needs (good or bad)

• There are many meetings that I do not always want to attend, but thesemeetings I do not want to miss. I really look forward to them.

17. Lessons learnt

The process -Needs

• • 74 needs were seen as almost to many to by some project participants, but a few hundred requirements were no problem

• • The needs outside the boundaries were easily considered non relevant, not as stimuli for innovation

• • The users liked the traceability between statements and needs more than the developers even though we did it mainly for the developers

18. Questions?