Paola Capello - Alcotra Innovazione

Lisboa, 22nd November 2012

“Ideal Living Labs and reality: the case of Alcotra Innova=on project”

Paola Capello, Regione Piemonte (Italy), project manager

1

1

Strategic Project

ALCOTRA INNOVAZIONE

2

2

Table of contents Ø  Some background info on the Alpmed Region

Ø  LLs from ENoLL

Ø The project Alcotra Innovazione Ø  Areas of ac@vi@es and responsabili@es Ø  Project ac@vi@es in short

Ø  Set-‐up of cross-‐border Living Labs Ø  Implementa@on of trials

Ø  One pilot: G.TES Ø  Cri@cal analysis – Problems faced

Ø  Posi@ve results

Ø  Problems in establishing cross-‐border Living Labs

3

3

Some background info on the Alpmed region Ø  142.000 sKm (Rhone Alpes; PACA; Corse; Valle d’Aosta; Piemonte; Liguria; Sardegna)

Ø  19 M inhabitants

Ø  2 M enterprises and 550 B € GDP ; 2 % of GDP is invested in R & D

WHAT ABOUT ALREADY EXISTING

GROUPS OF FIRMS, ACADEMIA AND RESEARCH CENTRES?

Piemonte à since 2009 12 Innova=on clusters & 6 Technology Parks

Liguria àsince 2011 8 Innova=on clusters

Valle d’Aosta à since 1993 one Prototyping centre

PACA à since 2004 11 Poles de Compe==vité and since 2006 20 PRIDES (Pôles Régionaux

d’Innova=on et de Développement Économique Solidaire)

+

PACA Labs Ini=a=ve launched in November 2008 and co-‐funded by ERDF and regional funds especially focused on ICT (so far 30 projects – 6 / 12 month long)

Rhone Alpes à since 2004 13 Poles de Compe==vité

4

4

LLs from ENoLL

PACA

-‐ LL ICT Usage Lab

Piemonte

-‐ C.Lab Salute

-‐ C.lab Agri (now closed)

-‐  Living Piemonte (12 Innova=ve clusters)

Rhone Alpes

-‐ Design Crea=ve City LL

-‐  Innovasud RALL -‐  Imaginove’s LL

-‐  E-‐Care Lab

-‐  Erasme about innova=on in PA

… and some few experiences in E-‐health / telemedicine SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE à

ALCOTRA INNOVATION PROJECT

Aosta Valley Region

Since 2012

-‐ Vallée Lab on energy efficiency and savings, logis=cs, territorial and rural development

5

5

The project September 2010 – October 2013 Alcotra 2007–2013 Programme European territorial co-‐opera@on objec@ve Co-‐funded by the ERDF Axe 1 : Development and Innova@on Measure 1.1 : Produc@ve systems

Partners ü  Regione Piemonte, -‐ Leadpartner ü  Regione Valle d'Aosta ü  Regione Liguria ü Provincia di Torino ü  Région Provence-‐Alpes-‐Côte d’Azur ü  Région Rhône-‐Alpes It is a STRATEGIC PROJECT à all partners are Public Authori@es and the project must have some impacts not only on the economy but also on policies boos@ng innova@on.

In our case we would like to show and “convince” policy makers that the Living Lab approach can make the difference.

6

6

Areas of ac=vi=es and responsabili=es Regione Piemonte and Regione Liguria à Intelligent Mobility

Regione Valle d’Aosta à Smart Energies

Région PACA à E-‐health / telemedicine

Région Rhone Alpes à Crea=ve Industries

ONE SINGLE AIM

The establishment of

cross-‐border Living Labs

7

7

Project ac=vi=es in short Ac=vity 1 : Management

Ac=vity 2 (already finished)

-‐  Analysis of the state-‐of the art and mapping of innova=ve actors.

-‐  Awareness raising of the Living Lab concept / presenta=on of the project to a broad audience.

Ac=vity 3 (already finished) : Set-‐up of cross-‐border Living Labs

-‐  Defini=on of a common set of tools to deploy cross-‐border Living Labs.

Ac=vity 4 (on going) : implementa=on of experimenta=ons

-‐  Project wri=ng à evalua=on à support to the implementa=on of the best proposals

-‐  Launch of a pre-‐commercial public procurement call on Intelligent Mobility and Smart Energies as an instrument to foster research and innova=on while applying the Living Lab approach.

-‐  Search for possible funding schemes for the ideas worked out

Ac=vity 5 (just started) : Strategic Plan

-‐  Wri=ng of a Strategic plan for boos=ng innova=on for policy makers

Ac=vity 6 (on going) : Communica=on

8

8

Set-‐up of cross-‐border LL -‐  Theorical studies on possible governance models

I.   Federa=on approach (Source: Roberto Santoro) implies the existence of several, independent, thema=c Living Labs that are spontaneously growing up inside each par=cipant country border, and are then brought to unity by means of the crea=on of cross-‐country links, clusters and mul=-‐loca=on experiments.

9

9


II.   Umbrella approach (Source Jens Schumacher) implies the presence of a central (“light”) management en=ty that is in charge of facilita=ng the deployment of trials inside a transna=onal environment. It is based on an overarching structure, composed by representa=ves of all the regional “chapters” of the cross-‐border Living Lab, in charge of defining common guidelines, assessment tools and monitoring systems: these assets are delivered to the local stakeholders, who will be les free to set up one or more pilot ac=ons in their respec=ve region, on a range of thema=c domains, yet according to a common methodological approach.

10

10


III.   LEADERS approach (Source Francesco Molinari) as opera=onal procedure for Living Lab establishment derived from the Umbrella approach

In which following following steps are foreseen:

1.   Localise and iden=fy your stakeholders

2.   Establish a Living Lab PPP (Public Private Partnership)

3.   Assess the relevance of « cross border » issues

4.   Deploy an ICT infrastructure

5.   Establish a local and/or « cross border » PPPP community (PPP+People)

6.   Run one or more User Driven, Open Innova=on pilots

7.   Summarise and evaluate the results

The ideal world…

11

11

Set-‐up of cross-‐border LL -‐  Evalua=on

Its basic targets should be:

1.   Complementariness of the consor=um

2.   Community building and proper func=oning

3.   User driven, Open innova=on methodology implementa=on

4.   Pilot outputs (and outcomes)

5.   Stakeholder sa=sfac=on

6.   Cost / Benefit analysis

7.   Reuse / Transferability poten=al

8.   Self-‐sustainability

9.   Policy Impact of trials

Par=cular care should be taken of:

The added value of the « cross border » aspects

It is very hard to evaluate and compare Living Labs though…

WATCH OUT:

-‐ every Living Lab has to take its local context into account and thus no two Living Labs are the same

-‐  every Living Lab has its par@cular sebng

12

12

Set-‐up of cross-‐border LL As part of the Corelabs project (hvp://www.ami-‐communi=es.eu/wiki/CORELABS) a framework was

developed to assess the performance of Living Labs according to their relevant dimensions and characteris=cs. Seven categories for analysis and evalua=on of the Living Labs were iden=fied. Later on an addi=onal indicator was added to iden=fy the contribu=on of living labs to SME-‐Innova=on. The categories are quoted hereaser:

1.   User Involvement

2.   Service crea=on such as: a. technical services – communica=on, collabora=on, demonstra=on, prototyping, valida=on, product deployment etc

b.   customer services – innova=on, idea genera=on, community services, training, specific service needs, business support, market customiza=on

c.   intra-‐network services (within ENoLL) – governance, management and training

3.   Infrastructure

4.   Organisa=on and Governance

5.   Innova=on outcomes. One of the major factors is the involvement of qualified personnel to guide and assist the innova=on process. Addi=onally, the Living Lab should be able to involve all necessary stakeholders in the innova=on chain, specifically in the area of user centricity and user knowledge.

6.   Methods and Tools. We should focus on standardiza=on and interoperability not reinven=ng the wheel

7.   Support to SMEs

13

13

Implementa=on of trials

1.   Accompanying measures: organiza=on of focus groups, encounter with local and cross-‐border stakeholders, legal assistance on how to deal with IPR and maybe give a legal en=ty to the Living Lab, defini=on of a business model, interna=onal promo=on of the solu=on envisaged and co-‐created with end-‐users.

2.   Pre-‐commercial public procurement (only in Valle d’Aosta Valley) where the budget of the project only funded the Living Lab crea=on. On the one hand, the innova=ve enterprises are allowed to exploit commercially their own prototypes in a faster, more effec=ve and less risky way, on the other hand the innova=on becomes more inclusive, tailor-‐made and socially sustainable through the involvement of users and customers in the process.

Contacts: Fabrizio Clerment [email protected] and Francesco Fionda [email protected]

14

14

One pilot: G.TES Ground Thermal Energy Storage Main aims: Use of renewable energy resources to capture thermal energy from solar collectors and seasonal

geothermal storage thought closed loop borehole heat exchangers in the ground in southern Europe climate.

Key ac=vi=es: 1)  proposi=on of new and eco-‐friendly techniques of energy storage (chilling and hea=ng) for civil

and agricultural use, 2)  integra=on with already exis=ng hea=ng and chilling systems, 3)  quan=fica=on of system efficiency in term of CO2 reduc=on and energy saving, 4)  es=ma=on of pay back =me at present and future fuels costs. Expected results: •  introduc=on of innova=ve techniques in southern Europe, •  relevant energy saving, •  reduc=on of produc=on costs, •  Zero CO2 Contacts: Prof. Giuseppe Mandrone [email protected] References: hvp://www.dlsc.ca/

15

15

One pilot: G.TES Ground Thermal Energy Storage

16

16

Cri=cal analysis -‐ Problems faced (1/2) Ac=vity 1: management

Project managers are, in most cases, not public servants nor policy makers à it is hard for them to have a say in the world of poli=cs and , generaly speaking, to make any relevant decision on their own.

Ac=vity 2: Mapping and gezng the right people involved

-‐  We did not spend enough =me on the analysis of the state-‐of the art and the iden=fica=on of innova=ve actors à sectors of interest were not chosen through a bovom-‐up approach but vicerversa.

-‐  We found it hard to involve local stakeholders (especially labs and SMEs) because in our regions (but PACA) the LL concept was not known and, due to programme and budget constraints, the consor=um could not offer immediate tangible and concrete financial support to any en=ty joining the Alcotra Innovazione community.

What for? I do not see any advantages for me in a short

term!

17

17

Cri=cal analysis -‐ Problems faced (2/2) Ac=vity 3 : Set-‐up of the pilot ac=ons

It was hard to define a common set of tools to deploy cross-‐border Living Labs because:

ü  partner regions had different past experiences or none at all! à While PACA wanted to build up on some past projects and ini=a=ves, the other partners had to start almost from “Zero”

ü  the project groupeware did not work as expected à the poten=al future LL lacked on an ICT pla|orm à cross-‐border working groups preferred to communicate via emails or phone/skype calls

Ac=vity 4 : Implementa=on of pilot ac=vi=es

-‐  Partners are not aligned and are not on the same page as per the way of proceeding

-‐  They offer more services / accompanying measures to local stakeholders only à how can a real cross-‐border LL be established? This maver should have been solved while applying for the call and not when the project is already on going…

-‐  End 2012 / 2013 is a “poor” period to find some external sources of funding

Ac=vity 5 : Strategic Plan for boos=ng Innova=on

-‐ Very scarse and limited interest expressed by policy makers.

-‐  Euroregion is merely a label with poor concrete and tangible results on a poli=cal level.

18

18

Posi=ve results

Ø  Regione Valle d’Aosta pre-‐commercial public procurement was an effec=ve tool to finance innova=ve firms and research centres though the cross-‐regionality criterion was not taken too much in considera=on

Ø  This template is an important example which can be adapted and re-‐use by project partners within Alcotra Innova=on project or even beyond

Ø  LLs are not considered only for aliens any more!!!

Ø  Thank to the networking ac=vi=es organised within the Alcotra Innova=on project new encounters were made laying the basis for future coopera=ons.

WE HAVE JUST STARTED AND MUST CONSOLIDATE ON WHAT BUILT SO FAR!

NOW IN FEW YEARS

19

19

Stakeholders say…

Why is it so difficult?

Ø  Lack of knowledge and informa@on on Living Labs

Ø  LL sustainability. No specific funds available (but in PACA). In the past ICT policy support programme of the Compe@@veness and Innova@on Programme (CIP) and the ICT programme of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)

Ø IPR management. Especially big enterprises are afraid to share their know-‐how

Ø Different regulatory framework condi@ons

QUESTIONS?

Paola Capello [email protected]

www.alcotra-innovazione.eu

20

20