From WikiPeople-pilot

Jump to: navigation, search


Methodological Foundations

The paradigm of Open Innovation is based on an extensive scholarship on the understanding of innovation processes. According to Chesbourgh who launched the term Open Innovation, it can be defined as the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation and expand the markets. It combines internal and external ideas into architectures and systems and treats innovation as an open system. Open Innovation means that valuable ideas can come from inside or outside the company, placing external ideas and at the same level of importance as internal ideas. [1] The open innovation paradigm acknowledges that in a world-wide economy, with technologies becoming more and more complex and more difficult to understand and to manage by one single individual or organization, it is necessary to work from a large basis of contributions and to foster collaboration. This same assumption is applied to user driven approaches. User driven innovation implies that the source of the innovation process is a profound understanding of customer needs, as well as the ability to translate customer knowledge into unique products and experiences.[2] User driven innovation has an important focus on user pull instead of technology push. It promotes the direct involvement of the end-users (consumers or businesses) in the innovation process through observation processes, toolkits and user panels in an open collaborative environment that is flexibly structured. [3] Based on the literature on user driven and open innovation (Chesbrough, von Hippel, Pénin, Enkel, de Jong) we can identify some main focus areas that are most important in relation to the PEOPLE objectives and that must be considered during the evaluation and monitoring activities.

Innovation with communities

Innovation with communities consists for the innovation process to rely on external communities (businesses or citizens) to which they outsource a part of the innovative activity. [4] This view is enforced by user driven approaches such as the lead-user theory defined by Eric von Hippel who was among the first to introduce the concept of user driven innovation in the development of products and services. In 1976, he demonstrated through statistical research that approximately 80% of innovations judged by users as successful were in fact invented, prototyped and field tested by users rather than by an instrument manufacturer. Consequently he termed this innovation pattern as ´user dominated´.[5] On a later stage, Von Hippel introduces also the concept of ´lead-users´, that are users (both individuals and firms) ahead of the majority of users with respect to an important market trend and that expect to gain relatively high from a solution. They are at the leading edge of the market with respect to important market trends. [6] This assumption is one of the main methodological concepts of the PEOPLE project. The PEOPLE project dedicates extensive resources to the activation of stakeholders for each scenario and pilot, in order to achieve a balanced representation of the different stakeholders related to urban ecosystems (citizens, businesses & SMEs, public administration, researchers and technologists). From this network of ´activation agents´ the lead-users will be identified that will be actively involved in order to determine the ICT services to deploy and during the design process. [7] Developments in internet technology and social networking technologies allowed for further user community involvement in innovation processes, making it possible to interact with numerous sources and predict an unprecedented level of richness. Innovation projects will be able to draw end-users, suppliers, or other stakeholders in the heart of their product development e.g. through online idea management or community participation in product development. One important source of innovation will be companies from other industries, because we know that most innovation is based on a recombination of existing knowledge, concepts, and technology. [8] This idea is confirmed in the PEOPLE project, through the extensive use of internet and social networking technologies to involve end-users and stakeholders in the project. Different technologies will be used, for social networks, online surveys and information dissemination. The activation of stakeholders and involvement of end-users will be an important issue during the evaluation and monitoring process at all stages of the project. An important aspect will be to assess how users interact with ICT services making it necessary to apply automatic methods for data gathering. Also surveys and interviews will be used to ask the users on their opinion in relation to the ICT services.

Innovation processes and ICT services

Closed innovation theories effectively assumed the absence of any measurement error in the evaluation of projects. User driven processes can effectively reduce the chance of failure through the use of iterative innovation cycles that can be defined as iterations between the generation of knowledge and concepts, consisting of identifying areas for the innovation process. [9] Once the innovation environment is established, innovation activities start iteratively guided by interventions including prototype development and field experimentations. The innovation starts with creating user scenarios and limited experimentations on simple use cases in order to achieve quick results and being able to learn jointly and effectively. Interventions consist of the identification of user needs and problems to be solved, the formulation of hypotheses for its solution, planning and implementing the development innovation and joint experiencing, learning and evaluation of solutions achieved. [10] Recognizing this cyclic nature, the PEOPLE project has implemented several innovation cycles, starting with the preparation cycle. ICT services will be adapted and improved along the different innovation loops. These loops will also be important to test and validate the pilot results, user activation and ICT services. Therefore these loops are considered as crucial evaluation points of the pilot activities and the different ICT services. During the innovation loops the ICT services deployment and evolvement will be monitored with an evaluation session after each loop, taking into account different aspects, such as the studies made, the scenarios defined, the hardware infrastructures, etc. in order to learn from the results.

IP Management and business models

In user driven open innovation, proactive IP management becomes a critical element since IP flows in and out of enterprises and projects on a regular basis. Proactive IP management is possible only when markets for technology licensing are to some extent developed. Enterprises need to access external IP to speed up and nurture their own research engine. At the same time, they also profit from their own, unused IP when other enterprises find this of use. Thus, an alternative that is becoming more prominent is licensing-out to external stakeholders who can use the technology in exchange for royalty fees. [11] As an illustration of the growth of the open innovation phenomenon, the number of licensing agreements is bursting worldwide and this trend is likely to continue. [12] This means that intellectual property rights, when they exist have to be thought about early in the innovation process. The IP management in PEOPLE has an important role in the project as they will largely define the sustainability of the project results and the uptake of the innovation and data model by businesses and SMEs. PEOPLE will use open data models, meaning that data will be freely available to everyone, without restrictions from copyrights or other mechanisms of control, at least at the level of metadata. Therefore IP management aspects will be included in the evaluation and monitoring activities, taking under consideration the common strategy on FOSS, licensing and the business approach. User driven open innovation suggests that inventive output from within a company should not be restricted to the current business model, but instead have the opportunity to go to market through a variety of channels.[13] The PEOPLE project foresees the foresees a services implementation by a variety of SMEs and businesses based on the PEOPLE data model and information flows that will be designed tested and validated during the project. PEOPLE will define different business models in order to respond to this need, taking into account the different ICT services and data model defined during the project. The business models will be designed and validated along with the different innovation loops towards their uptake and sustainability in order to facilitate the final time-to market and future exploitation of the ICT services.

PEOPLE's approach to user-driven innovation

PEOPLE is following a methodology driven by the users’ needs that will guarantee the adequacy of the technological solutions deployed at the cities with the interests and needs of its stakeholders. A key aspect of this methodology is a structure composed by innovation cycles where innovative activities are being carried out driven by users in all the stages of the process. The users and stakeholders must be taken into account when defining the kind of solutions being deployed and integrated, its characteristics and the use cases identified in order to obtain a prototype that can be tested by users at an early stage allowing iterative modifications of the prototype converging to an accepted and validated solution for potential clients.


Innovation Cycles

The idea of research being a (typically cyclical) process linking theory and practice assumpting that action brings understanding and insight (new knowledge) is taken from the Action Research concept. [14] In particular from the application of Action Research that is done in the context of Open User driven Innovation ecosystems that show a situation of openness and cooperation, complex social processes, and the need to introduce changes into these processes and observe the effects during the process. [15]

The use of some aspects of Action Research applied to open user driven innovation have been also succesful in the case of innovation ecosystems related to ICT development for e-inclusion and e-health applications in a non-rural environment [16]

Based on this experience the execution of PEOPLE was structured in four Innovation Cycles covering the full duration of the project.

All the cycles have the same structure excepting the Preparation Cycle that includes a first phase of Preparation Activities needed for the definition of the scenario.

After the Preparation Cycle, three decreasing in length Innovation Cycles take place. This decrease is due to the kind of activities that will be done within the cycles: on the first cycle, more time is needed to address the modifications that have to be done in the services deployed based on users' feedback. It's expected that, as long as the project goes on, the services deployed converge to a validated solution, so the time dedicated to modifications on Second and Third Innovation Cycle will decrease.

Cycles gantt.gif

Preparation Cycle

The Preparation Cycle takes place at the beginning of the project and is composed by two different stages: Preparation Activities and Innovation Cycles. One of the most important results of the Preparation activities substage is the Scenario definition of each Pilot. After the Scenario is defined, a standard Innovation Cycle takes place where the services are deployed, the users interact with the services and its feedback is gathered.


First Innovation Cycle

The First Innovation Cycle starts after the first feedback on services is obtained from users at the end of the Preparation Cycle (Nov 2011). It lasts five months and is composed by the following stages.

Definition stage: At this stage, each Pilot has to define, based on the analysis of users' feedback carried out at the end of the previous cycle, what kind of modifications to the services will be accomplished in the current cycle. During this stage the overall planification of the particular activities in the cycle has to be done.

Modification, Integration and deployment of services: Based on the analysis of the users' feedback gathered in the previous cycle and on the definition of modifications to be done to the services deployed. This modifications will be validated in the next stage.

Gathering of users feedback on interaction with services: After the deployment of the modifications done in the previous stage, users must interact with the new version of the services and each Pilot must gather users feedback on this interaction.

Analysis of users feedback: The users feedback must be analysed in order to draw conclusions about the modification that must be done to the services.

Evaluation of the Cycle/Pilot: This is not a stage but a milestone. At the end of every cycle an evaluation of the cycle for every pilot will take place.

Innovation cycle.gif

Second Innovation Cycle

The Second Innovation Cycle starts in April 2012 and lasts four months, one month less than the First Cycle. This is due to the fact that the modifications that have to be made to the services are expected to be less time consuming than the ones in the First Cycle. It shares the generic Innovation Cycles structure.

Third Innovation Cycle

The Third Innovation Cycle starts in August 2012 and lasts three months, one month less than the Second Cycle. This is due to the fact that the modifications that have to be made to the services are expected to be less time consuming than the ones in the Second Cycle. The services are expected to converge at the end of this Cycle to a validated by users final version. It shares the generic Innovation Cycles structure.

Stakeholders and community involvement during the Innovation Cycles

Identification, involvement and commitment of stakeholders (users among them) and communities are crucial tasks when following an user-driven open innovation methodology. The quantity and type of users and organizations to get involved in the Pilots depend on the tasks being implemented, on the Innovation Cycle going on.

Preparation Cycle

Preliminary identification of Stakeholders per Pilot

During the first months of the preparation Cycle is necessary to work on the preliminary identification of stakeholders per Pilot. These stakeholders will provide the first feedback on the services that the pilot will develop and so, important decisions will be taken based on their feedback.

It’s important to identify the interest and motivation that they may have in participating in the Pilot and work on the strategy for an active engagement from their side. An action plan should be prepared where we can consider different strategies for different stakeholders, users and communities.


Preliminary gathering of feedback about services to be developed

At this stage, the action plan should be implemented so the needs and motivations of the stakeholders can be defined and addressed by means of the design of appropriate solutions, integrating and customizating according to the identified needs. Ideas of services could be presented in order to serve as base for discussion. Surveys, interviews, social networks, web 2.0 are tools that can be used for this purpose but they are not exclusive. Every Pilot may have different strategies.

Identification of stakeholders per service

Once identified the services that will be deployed during the 1st Innovation cycle it’s important to define stakeholders per service. This provides a new level of granularity, allowing addressing specific issues related to the services. The following table was proposed for this purpose:

Stakeholders table.jpg

By the use of the table we guarantee that end users were identified as part of the stakeholders for the service, that the potential providers of the service (or any component, infrastructure or information necessary for it) were taken into account, that the Pilot starts thinking in the potential exploiters, traders and distributors of the services, so preliminary planning the business model, that Pilots thinks of the administrators, the ones that will be dealing with the configuration and management of the service and finally, the enablers, any important organization that shouldn’t be excluded.

First Innovation Cycle

On end users

End users will give the feedback that will be used for iteratively improve the services in order to converge to a matured and user-validated solution. This is the reason why choice of end users is critical. Slanted choices of end users will provide solutions possibly not suited for all the intended users, so it’s critical to make a balanced choice so we can know that different needs from different sectors of population were addressed. For this cycle the identification of at least three groups of end users is proposed, and for each groups, a segmentation should be provided (i.e: End user group: Students – Segmentation: foreign users, low technological literated students, disabled students, etc.)

Open Innovation Communities

Communities that will participate in the open approach used for developing the services should be identified. Part of these communities should be found between the stakeholders already identified, but also other communities should be taken into account. Once the services and its technological basis and frameworks were defined, we can identify what open-source communities could be involved. All services in People Project will be released as open source software, most of them built over existent open source projects so, a good use of already established open source communities can be done. In addition, technological-specific communities can be involved. (For example, android community for android based mobile applications.) At this point, a strategy for Open Innovation Communities involvement should be prepared. Regarding stakeholders, part of the strategy defined for the involvement of stakeholders can be used. The consortium has thought in a very preliminary strategy for this taking into account the following steps:

  • State of the Art: Already known strategies for open innovation communities’ involvement.
  • Infrastructures: Definition of OS Infrastructure to be used for OS Project development and formalization.
  • Governance models: Governance model to be followed by the OS project.
  • Dissemination for involvement strategy
    • OS Social networks and platforms (Sourceforge, github, etc.)
    • Demonstration tools (i.e. Screen cast, online demos, etc.)
    • Participation on OS Community forums.
    • ICOS portal

For more specific information on the Open Innovation Communities involved in the different Pilots refer to:

Open Innovation Communities

Feedback from users and stakeholders

The feedback gathered from users at this stage will feed the next innovation cycle and, in particular, the open innovation process (by involving open source communities in the modifications and enhancement of the previously released services). Several strategies can be followed in order to gather the user’s feedback: Surveys, interviews, questionnaires and, very important, validation and co-design sessions. Validation sessions (with physical presence of the end user and monitor from Pilot at the same time) are a very productive and important tool. Guidelines for conducting validation sessions were provided.

Second and Third Innovation Cycle

Activation of Open Innovation communities

Modification and definition of new functionalities for the previously released services, based on the user feedback gathered in the previous cycle, should be defined; also, new services to the deployed during this cycle. The definition of modifications and new functionalities should work as a pivot for OS community’s involvement. These modifications and enhancements should be translated into new features request so the OS Project could work on them. This why we manage to close an User-driven-open innovation approach, by driven the open source development by the needs and feedback of final users.

During the Second Innovation Cycle a summary of ideas, originally created by Jono Bacon, on creating buzz in Open Innovation Communities was added to this wiki.

Identification of new services’ stakeholders

As done in the previous cycle, for new services being deployed it’s necessary to identify the stakeholders (following the provided table), three groups of end users and provide a segmentation for them. Also, a strategy and activation of these stakeholders is required. For more specific information on the Open Innovation Communities involved in the different Pilots refer to: Open Innovation Communities

Feedback from users and stakeholders

See Feedback from users and stakeholders

User Engagement

To successfully include users in a co-creative innovation process a setting that stimulates discussion and creativity is required. In a focus group this is achieved by good group dynamic and governance of the group. The group dynamics is highly dependent on the group’s composition, it is important that the participants are diverse enough to stimulate discussion and creativity while avoiding too conflicting views [17]. The governing or guiding the participants is an important task in a focus group, done in an effort to both keep the participants on track [18][19] while trying to avoid that the group is being dominated by overly influential participants [17]. It is not uncommon that methods for idea and concept generation are incorporated in the focus group to further enhance or tap into the participants’ creativity; examples of this can be seen in terms of methods like brainstorming and scenario building. Three different levels of contribution from users in a cocreative innovation process as decision, information and creation activities can be defined [20]. And four different kinds of users can be identified: intuitive, pro, freshman and nerd (figure 2), based on their familiarity with application and object knowledge. Other authors defines users by other user characteristics, such as Von Hippel [21] who introduce the term “lead user”, and Eason [22] who base his definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary users on how close relation the users have to a system. Regardless of what definition is chosen, the choice of users and type of activity will reflect on what kind of contributions that is being made. This makes it important to reflect over the purpose of the activity, what kinds of users to involve and what the desired result of the activity is. Therefore it is important to keep user characteristics and types of activities in mind while selecting which participants and methods for user involvement to incorporate in the innovation process. The desired result of an activity also reflects back to what the actual activities are supposed to deliver. The aim of a focus group is to create a setting that stimulates discussion. While methods such as scenario building [23] and personas [24] both aim to produce concrete scenarios that showcase the use of a product or service and archetypes of potential users, both have very distinct characteristics. Since scenarios and personas are dependent on the details of these characteristics, the quality of contribution might prove to be an important factor to take into consideration when comparing the use of methods in different settings.

Theme Indicated by Source
Flexibility in interaction Interactions available to participants [25][26][27][17]
Planning and exacution Ease of planning and executing the activity [17]
Group Dynamic Group composition and flow od discussion [17]
Governance Ease of governing or guiding activities [18] [19] [17]
User characteristics The caracteristics of participating users [21] [22] [20]
Quality of contribution Level of detail of what is being contributed [23] [24]

Theoretical framework over user involvement in an user-driven ecosystem [28]

After seeing several techniques for dealing with user participation, it's important to remark how critical is to succesfully engage the users that will validate and give feedback about the services of the PEOPLE's Pilot. We can think of five major challenges when engaging users: (Some of the following information is extracted from [29])

  • Identifying the end-users
  • Recruiting end-users
  • Securing commitment
  • Getting the most out of interactions with users
  • Capturing information and using results

Identifying the end-users

When dealing with user centric service delivery the identification of an ideal users(who are composed of both citizens and also business) seems to be determiningfactor during for a project conceptualization. One of the most important drawbacks to current eParticipation initiatives is the large and diverse range of stakeholders which have different needs and preferences, diverse interests, backgrounds, perspectives,and linguistic and technical capabilities. In the foreseeable future there will remain citizens who only use technology minimally, citizens who have a wide range of skillsand experience in the latest technologies and citizens with a wide range of literacy and communication skills. In addition, there will remain citizens who like talking about civic issues and want more opportunities to do so and there will be others who will only be involved when an issue is close to their own interests. A lack of understanding of principal participatory behaviors and expectations may lead to the project failure as the attention has to be paid not only to different types and profiles of citizens, in terms of their e-skills, attitudes, and use of information and communication technologies, but also their social groups and customer segments. [30]

  • We should develop an ongoing understanding of
    • Who the technology is for
    • How it fits in with people’s working practices and therefore
    • What the purpose of the technology is
  • Involve diverse users recognising and testing the possibility of diversity, e.g.:
    • Different levels of ICT skills
    • Different roles
    • Different working practices
    • Different needs

It also could be very interesting to engage sceptics: their scepticism might be important for developing the technology

Users are stakeholders, so we should use the template provided to identified different kind of users.

  • Group Name
  • Contact Person
  • Interest and motivation with regard to project scenarios
  • Objectives to achieve with the active involvement of this group
  • Importance, commitment and influence of the group and its contact to support effectively the technological development and deployment activities for the scenarios implementation in the city
  • Profile (or people identification) of the group members participating actively in the technological development and deployment activities for the scenarios implementation in the city
  • Strategy and initiatives defined to achieve the active engagement of this group in the PEOPLE project
  • Specific action plan (including activities, milestones and resources) to implement the previously stated strategy
  • Rewards to the group for its participation in the PEOPLE project activities. Are they necessary (Y/N)? If affirmative, what are the expected rewards?

Recruiting end-users

We have to define how many people we need to give us meaningful data. Depending on the kind of service to be validated we should engage between 5 and 20 users. Once we have identified the profiles of users we want to involve, we need to locate them and convince them of the value of participating in the project.

We have to take into account that could happen that people are too busy, don't see the benefit of getting involved, are sceptical o don't care. So we need some kind of incentive to get them involved. We should:

  • Tap into professional networks to recruit your users
  • Use key contacts within organisations
  • Use the power of the social networks
  • More informal methods as notes on University blackboards, email and discussion lists, classifieds.
  • Stands on the streets
  • Advertisements
  • Any other idea.

Recruiting end-users is time-consuming. It takes an average of 1.15 hours of staff time to recruit one participant [31]

Securing commitment

Once the project reached its target users it is extremely important to define what motivates users to participate in it (tagging, sharing, creating commenting content). If people make an effort to participate is definitely with a strict purpose to have things done. It is primordial to acknowledge the participation effort of the citizens. People must have impression that their engagement is meaningful and has an influence and that the time they are spending on the participation is worth it. The moderator role seems to be very important as the feedback is needed in order to illustrate what is happening and what changes are being made as a result of input. Moreover we realized that whenever an online forum or platform was used, moderation was also a key issue concerning the quality of the debate and its “abordability” for an average, non expert user. The moderator role is also to respond to the users questions in order to facilitate and make their participation smoother. [30]

User engagement should be a continuous process based on the importance of the issue discussed during the pilot execution phase. This will help maintain the already registered users and engage more through the dissemination of the project’s results. At the beginning of the pilot phase of the project it is normal to have a small number of users, since they won’t engage in discussions immediately, but rather try to get familiar to the tools provided by the project [30]

One of the People's Project challenges is keeping people motivated throughout an iterative innovation cycle. As commented before, we could need some kind of incentive to make it happen, financial one, gift vouchers, social pressure; if possible, ‘Gold pass’ for users to use the technology outside the session of validation, etc.

It's important the creation of a "culture of involvement" by means of making users feel value, showing them that their input makes a difference, giving them structured personal feedback (email, letter).

The user must see that his feedback had a purpose and that it was taken into account. It can be easily made when using iterative validation sessions (i.e one per innovation cycle). This way, the user can validate modfications made based on his previous feedback, facilitating his engagement.

The barriers to greater online citizen engagement are mostly cultural and organizational. Overcoming these challenges will require greater efforts to raise awareness and capacity both within governments and among citizens. Building a co-ordinated community website (CCW) would provide direction, hints and tips to help build skills, help local developers identify and deal with problems and find ways to extend and exploit strengths. If used to underpin training, such a toolkit could help change entrenched culture and develop new understanding in relation to community websites and their potential in supporting community empowerment. Guidelines for Website Building

Getting the most out of interactions with users

We can find in literature extensive experiences and conclusions on methods that we can use for obtaining useful user feedback about prototypes. Patricia Sullivan[32] compares, and concludes in its complementarity, laboratory observation technique and focus groups.

Laboratory observation and focus groups are usefully complementary for usability research that addresses user responses to an interface under development. They provide diverse input on key interface issues of look and feel, accessibility, and intuitiveness. Though not the “ideal” pairing of methods for all situations, as responses to a combination of HOW and WHY questions that explore the possible features of an emerging interface, they can add interesting complementary information. The need for complementarily is great in reseamh methods that address the usability of computer interfaces. Since the focus in such studies is on speed and richness of feedback on issues important to the interface (such as accessibility, intuitiveness, look and feel, and navigation), multiple methods that complement each other and can be stitched together quickly are desirable to usability nxearchers. Harnessing multiple methods to this task is not a simple and easy answer (as this extended example shows), but it is one that holds promise for increasing the quality of usability feedback on products under development.

We need to define how and when to extract appropriate data from users relevant to the project. It is important to design tasks and processes so that end-users provide relevant and meaningful information In a validation session we should take into account:

  • Designing the right task
    • Thinking about the ‘context of use’: real-life scenarios where people would use the technology
    • Allowing the end-user to explore the technology in an unstructured way
    • Avoid implicitly proposing a certain path
    • Do a trial-run of the event with at least two users
  • Facilitation
    • Structured process design of the event
    • But: keep it interesting, use non-technical language where possible and let your end-users speak

Some ideas and resources when structuring the questions and data extraction for the validation session:

Capturing information and using results

  • Take as many notes as possible during the event
  • Have 2 or 3 members of your team present, and divide roles: e.g. facilitator, observer, note-taker
  • Analyse and report on results as soon as possible, and share these results within the team
  • Reflect on the event within the team:
    • What went well, and why?
    • What did not go so well, and why?
    • What have we learnt for next time?
  • Having a clear mechanism for making changes (timetable, deadlines, quality control)


Guidelines and best practices for conducting validation sessions with end users were provided.

Experience from other Smart Cities Projects

This section will include some of those experiences and activities openly disseminated by other projects in ICT PSP Smart Cities that can be interesting for the execution of PEOPLE Project and the consecution of its objetives. This section will be periodically updated with new experiences and conclusions.

Open Cities

Open data [33]

A first survey on the open date available in the different cities was defined. It must be taken into account to which institutions the surveys are being sent. City councils are composed by massive staffs and each platform may belong to different areas, so the request must be well directed to each area. First of all, a new website and an online survey was created. The online survey was tested with Barcelona and Berlin City councils: five people editing the same answer sheet, some of them deleting others previous work, and plenty of work duplicated. As a result, it was decided to continue with a Google spreadsheet attached to the survey. The problem was that these entities were not all well prepared as a team and they had plenty of departments that had to collaborate in the answer of the survey. The eventual solution was the creation of a text document that required general information about Open Data and how those city councils were going to achieve the goal in Opening their Data and which areas were going to be the first ones. In addition to that document, a second document was attached to the survey with a spreadsheet format. This second document included all the Open Data sets that were available in each department of the city councils and required different data for each of them.

Once cities had fulfilled their general information survey, they were asked to proceed with the specific data. This survey was formatted as a spreadsheet where cities could specify all details related to each one of their own data sets, divided into different business areas. Data sets attributes are listed in a summary table below:

Dataset attribute Definition
Dataset class Enter a possible class: Arts and Recreation / Business Enterprise,

Economics, and Trade / City Budget: Revenues & Expenditures / City Portal Web Statistics / Construction, Housing, and Public Works / Crime and Community Safety / Demographics / Education / Elections / Emergency Services / Energy and Utilities / Environment, Geography and Meteorological / Health and Disability / Labor Force and Employment Market / Law Enforcement, Courts, and Prisons / Political / Tourism / Urban Transport / Others

Dataset Name Enter an identifier for the dataset (e.g., filename, document name, etc.).
Data Manager Name and Contact Info Enter the name and contact information (e.g., phone number, email,…) for the data manager (i.e., the primary person responsible for the data, who may or may not be the owner or creator of the data). This information will be needed in the event there are questions arising when reviewing the dataset.
Description Write a short description that accurately reflects the contents in the dataset.
Data Formats List the specific data formats that are supported. Possible answers include html, csv, kml/kmz, pdf, shapefile, txt, xls, xml.
Data Handling Rules Describe the particular data handling rules/policies, if any, that must be followed. Possible answers include none or restricted (e.g., some special data handling policies apply). If restricted was selected, please specify the particular data handling conditions. Ideally, datasets will have a license, such as the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (
Listing of Factors List the names of the factors in the dataset. For example, year, square meter, time.
Data Time period Indicate the time period for the data (e.g., data for 2009, data between 2005-2010, etc.).
Dataset Size Indicate an estimate of the dataset size (e.g., less than 1 MB, 1 MB or greater, 1 GB or greater, etc.). If the exact size is known, please specify it (or in the case of a database, enter the number of records).
Data Access Indicate whether one can gain access to the data via a URL (if known, please specify), an API (if relevant, please specify the API, possible answers include web-service SOAP, web-service REST), and/or a database (if relevant, please indicate the database product & version, possible answers include MySQL Workbench 5.2, Oracle Database 11g Release 2, ...).
Data Freshness Indicate how often the dataset is updated. That is, does it get updated hourly, daily, monthly, annually, etc. If it is real-time data, please include the average data rate (e.g., expressed as 100 kbps, 1 Mbps).
Data Collection and Interpretation Indicate the difficulty that may exist when collecting, and/or interpreting the data by users. Possible answers include easy, semichallenging, and challenging. By easy, we mean data that is structured, expressed in a digital format, and available online via a URL. By semichallenging, we mean data that is semi-structured, and expressed in a digital format. By challenging, we mean data that is unstructured, and/or unavailable in digital form.
Availability Indicate whether the dataset already exists and is available. If not, indicate when it will be made available.
Language(s) Indicate whether the dataset exists in only one language (or more than one language). Please specify the particular language(s).

In the following table a summary with the results of the Open Data surveys is shown. The table presents the number of data sets of each business area provided by each city

Helsinki Amsterdam Berlin Barcelona Paris TOTAL
Arts and Recreation 0 1 0 2 0 3
City Budget: Revenues & Expenditure 0 1 7 0 0 8
Business Enterprise, Economics, and Trade 0 3 18 22 0 43
Crime and Safety 0 2 1 0 0 3
Elections 0 1 6 3 1 11
Emergency Services 0 1 0 1 0 2
Demographics 0 1 12 105 0 118
Education and Libraries 0 2 13 9 1 25
Energy & Utilities 0 1 9 2 1 13
Health & Disability 0 2 9 6 0 17
Mobility & Urban Transport 3 2 10 5 0 20
Labour Force and Employment Market 0 3 5 0 0 8
Law Enforcement 0 0 3 0 0 3
Environment, Geography and Meteorological 2 4 9 17 1 33
Tourism 0 2 2 1 0 5
Political 0 1 1 3 0 5
Construction, Housing, and Public Works 0 2 4 48 1 55
Others 0 2 3 45 0 50
TOTAL 5 31 112 269 5 422

Datasets extracted from city councils surveys


Arena Models [34]

“Arenas” are spaces, both physical and virtual, where social interaction takes place between “people in places”. Periphèria focuses on 5 Arenas:

  • Smart Neighborhood: where media-based social interaction occurs
  • Smart Street: where mew transportation behaviors develop
  • Smart Square: where civic decisions are made
  • Smart Museum and Park: where natural and cultural heritage feed learning
  • Smart City Hall: where mobile e-government services and delivered

Developing as-is scenarios represented the starting activity and had the following operational and communication goals:

Operational goals Communication Goals
  • Identifying and involving key Stakeholders
  • Creating a common vision of the contexts mainly based on problematic issues, related goals, and available resources
  • Selecting main urban locations for the pilots’ implementation
  • Starting interaction and communication among pilots’ coordinators and local communities and/or stakeholders
  • Developing a basic common language among involved communities and stakeholder

Modeling Arenas

Arena Modeling tools have been developed as co-design tools and considering specific needs of each pilots specifically referring to: conceptualization of the arenas, starting technological infrastructures and collaborative services exploration. In this first phase of Arena Modeling to-be scenarios have been developed at their early stages and are mainly formed of two components: visions or portions of visions and actions (To DOs) to be carried out as starting paths to move the local urban systems towards the visions.

Scenarios (both as-is and to-be) have been developed in different ways and with different results by each pilot city; this is mainly due to some basic reasons:

  1. cultural differences in local views of participation and innovation
  2. different experiences in Living Lab approach (only two of the pilots already experienced LL activities);
  3. different starting conditions depending on citizens trust towards public institutions, existence of active citizens organizations, existing or past collaborations among pilots’ coordinators and local administrations;
  4. different experiences in planning and managing co-design activities
  5. existing local projects to be joint by the Periphèria project.

The whole work on arena Models has been carried within two main perspectives: user-driven and co-design approach, and urban driven approach. User-driven approach is the “new” humanistic design method that by asking people for their experience and using this information in the design process is capable to get insights on new innovative ideas that could delight and serve people and that could have less chance to fail when they hit the market. The idea of user-driven approach basically relies on UCD (User Centred Design Method) as the method to lead user driven innovation spread out from design to other disciplines, as in managerial sciences where 30 years of research on similar concepts have already fertilized the field. On this basis the notion of open innovation has been elaborated. Ideally, co-design is about people with different backgrounds and skills who interact and cooperate constructively with each other in such a way that their different interests and goals are served simultaneously. However, it is a fact that a growing body of empirical evidences from the market side as well as from the society are showing that in most cases are the users themselves who first develop most new industrial and consumer products and services. Not only. This open user-contributed innovation is now growing steadily thanks to the great advances we have been making in the fields of communication, cooperation and collaboration. Examples can include new form of products designed with the help of web 2.0 tools like the use of on-line tools to design your own pair of shoes, your bag, your toy, your contents. Urban-driven innovation considers recent advancements of technologies and the way these are transforming citizens behaviors and life-styles are deeply affecting the way urban spaces are used and designed. Like the cars entering the urban space have profoundly contributed to the redefinition of urban space (the role if streets, their form, the way in which we used and design them) and the way in which society is organized (mobility is the condition of contemporary urban life), mobile phones and google-maps have completely re-shaped the way in which we used space and time in the city. Many of these changes often challenge the very nature of urban spaces: urban spaces appear passive entities influenced by the rapid changes in technologies and technologies use and have never been intended as potential subjects of technology conception and development. In Periphèria, the development of arena models challenges this vision and tries to make central and specific the contribution and exchange between the urban dimensions and the technologies, moving operationally towards an urban-driven innovation. The project in fact envisions the concept of urban-driven innovation by referring to the relational concept of “people in places” as a resource (an unutilized creative resource) to create innovation in both: the way urban contexts are lived, used, designed but also the way technologies are conceived, designed and used in daily lives and for the management of urban contexts. Urban-driven innovation can be achieved if open innovation is activated and fostered to make the urban dimensions come to life, in a new socio-urban dynamics that drives government transformation, collective creativity, and platform convergence.

Arena Modeling Tools have are intended as tool to inspire an support design thinking and idea generation for co-design process in living lab. Three kind of tools have been developed:

  • Arena Concepts modeling tools
  • Technology perspectives modeling tools
  • Services ideas cards


Takin in mind that a methodology as documented is very different from a methodology as used (in practice), PEOPLE project must take into account experiences from use of the methodology during the project. Feedback on these experiences will be obtained through the monitoring and evaluation activities.

One of the objectives of the monitoring and evaluation activities is to receive feedback on the PEOPLE methodology, making it possible to evolve the methodology along with the project and pilots after each innovation cycle. The final evaluation and conclusions on the pilots after each innovation cycle will give an overview on the use of the PEOPLE methodology applied in the pilots. It studies whether the methodology meets the requirements of the pilots and whether it should be adapted to the practical situations in the pilot. Also it is expected that the methodology will evolve along with the innovation cycles, evolving in different versions or stages of the methodology.

In order to obtain specific information from the pilots on the PEOPLE methodology, interviews will be held with the different pilots on the methodology. The results on this interview will be used as feedback on the methodology after each innovation cycle, making it possible to evolve the methodology according to the requirements and processes of the pilots. This survey will, in accordance with the pilot indicators, evolve with the innovation cycle objectives and phases.

Preparation Cycle


The questionnaire defined for the feedback on the methodology according the goals of the preparation cycle was:

Feedback 1-2.gif

Feedback 2-2.gif


  • About the general approach and its implementation
    • About the user-driven methodology. Useful or not?
  1. Project results will show this.
  2. It’s the best one we can choose. Our services are user oriented.
  3. Useful. It allows full implementation, use, sustainability and effectiveness.
  4. Useful for usability, acceptance and functionality. BUT you have to take in mind several things in order to implement it right.
    • Have we made enough effort for finding synergies?
  1. YES. We’re taking in mind Pilot needs AND project objectives.
  2. It’s difficult to go further with synergy because of short duration of the project.
  3. We could do more effort, but maybe it doesn’t mean more added value. Pilot objectives are more important than common objectives.
  4. Effort was made BUT more communication is needed. WP leader and Coordinator should facilitate this.
  • About the general approach and its implementation
    • About MediaWiki
  1. It only has been used for info collection. Just one direction input.
  2. It allows efficient work in collaboration, info sharing and access rights management, BUT security could be improved with HTTPS access.
  3. It meets the needs of pilot in terms of sharing methodological guidelines and monitoring.
  4. For communication it’s inferior than email or Office document. Formatting is time-consuming
  • About the Innovation Cycles
    • Length of preparation cycle is appropriate?
  1. Yes
  2. It is too short in general but for a 2 years project is fine
  3. Yes, enough to meet the objectives considering total project length.
  4. The time seems enough but the actual start of the project was later than planned. T
    • Phases of preparation cycle are adequate?
  1. Yes
  2. Definition and order adequate. The phases are short because short is the prep. Cycle. Identification of user should be before involvement of users.
  3. Yes
  4. It should consider that modification is concurrent with interaction with users. Limitations on modification phase length constrains services that can be chosen by users.
  • About users engagement
    • Enough support for users engagement?
  1. A deeper involvement in mobilization of stakeholders in Bilbao would be necessary.
  2. Not enough support for identification of stakeholders. Once the identification is made, methodological support is enough.
  3. More support could be provided for the engagement of local society and everyday users.
  4. More support on best practices for user engagement could be provided. Information on different distribution channels. Short state of the art on user activation
    • Usefulness of identification and engagement of stakeholders
  1. It’s a crucial task
  2. It’s very useful in order to ensure the effective use of services and to take into account feedbacks from very early in the services definition.
  3. Very useful for success of the scenario and sustainability of the applications
  4. Identification of lead users simplified communication since main req. were obtained from this group. Identification of additional stakeholders made possible to get new ideas for services or specific functionalities.
    • Usefulness of validation of services by users.
  1. Yes, it was useful for avoiding the offer of redundant or useless services.
  2. It allows to ensure users satisfaction quickly. Validation before deployment helps to fight IT reluctance from some kind of users.
  3. Validation made significant changes to the scenario. It created expectation for the apps. Services to be developed were chosen on user feedback basis.
  4. Useful feedback on functional problems. Usability issues less relevant.

Conclusions: Modifications based on feedback.


A new section in the wiki will be created with best practices, ideas and practical ways to accomplish this task (Already done).

We will agree on a communication channel where specific support will be provided on this task.


If needed, modification phase in the innovation cycles could have a variable length, depending on the complexity of services to be deployed and always keeping unchanged the innovation cycle expected length. It will be discussed with every Pilot at the beginning of each Cycle.

First Innovation Cycle

Five main objectives were set for the First Innovation Cycle:

  1. Release of at least one service per Pilot as an Open Source Project.
  2. Improve the identification and engagement of Stakeholders (including end users) and Open Innovation Communities
  3. Reinforce the open approach characteristics of the Innovation Process.
  4. Validate services with end users.
  5. Analyze feedback from users in order to feed the next cycle.

Considering these objectives, a questionnaire was provided to the partners of the project, participating in the different Pilots, to obtain feedback on the support provided by the Methodological Guidelines in order to reach these goals. A questionnaire per Pilot is expected.


On the Innovation Cycle

For this cycle, five key tasks were defined: Deployment of service/s, Engagement of stakeholders, end users and communities, Release of the service/s, Reinforcement of the open approach (Definition of the governance model, OS Infrastructures, Licenses and business models, etc.) and Validation with end users. These five tasks were organized as a roadmap and their results gathered in the First Cycle section in the wiki.

  • Do you think this roadmap was appropriate?
  • Had your Pilot any difficulty that more methodological support could avoid, in finishing successfully this roadmap?
  • Do you think the length of the First Innovation cycle was adequate to the objectives that were established?

Users, stakeholders and Communities

  • Has your Pilot experienced improvement on the identification and engagement of users, stakeholders and open innovation communities compare to the Preparation Cycle activity?
  • Was the provided methodological support useful in this matter? (Guidelines published in the wiki, proposed roadmaps, follow-up audio conferences, etc?)

During this cycle, Pilots were encouraged to identify at least three groups of end users per service and to provide a segmentation of these groups in order to guarantee a balanced participation of end users in the validation of the service.

  • Has the identification of end users for your services improved because of the provided guidelines?

Special interest was provided during this cycle to the identification and strategy for the involvement of Open Innovation Communities. This is an ongoing work.

  • What kind of support do you need for successfully involve your already identified open innovation communities?

Open Approach

During this cycle much more emphasis was made in the open approach methodology, so the original emphasis in an user-driven approach was complemented with the definition of several important issues for the openness of the innovation process (Governance model, OS Infrastructure, involvement of the open source developers communities, etc.).

  • Did this additional approach suit the characteristics and priorities of your pilot?
  • Do you agree with the proposed methodology for conducting an user-driven-open innovation approach? (Regarding upgrades of the services, open source communities being fed by feedback obtained in controlled validation sessions among other guidelines)

Validation with Users

Best practices for engagement and getting feedback from users was provided in wiki.

  • Did you use this information? If yes, was it useful? If not, why?

Guidelines for conducting validation sessions were also provided.

  • Did your Pilot use this information? If yes, was it useful? If not, why?

Monitoring activities

Monitoring activities are a continuous process throughout the innovation cycle.

  • Did these activities help to identify a bottleneck in your pilot and consequently come up with a mitigation strategy in a timely manner?

If not:

  • Do you consider the monitoring activities should be more intensive?
  • Or on the contrary, do you think the monitoring activities should be less intensive?

Second Innovation Cycle

Five main objectives were set for the Second Innovation Cycle:

  1. Improve the activation and engagement of the open communities around the Pilots
  2. Implement required modifications to previously released services based on users’ feedback and release at least one service per Pilot as an Open Source Project.
  3. Keep reinforcing the open approach characteristics of the Innovation Process.
  4. Validate services with end users.
  5. Analyze feedback from users in order to feed the next cycle.

At the beginning of the 2nd Innovation Cycle considerable effort was invested by the entire consortium in analyzing and revising the literature on Open Communities activation, in particular The Art of Community by Jono Bacon for topics such as planning of the community, website guidelines and creation of buzz in the community. Some of this information was reflected in the wiki duly referenced.

A questionnaire was provided to the partners of the project, participating in the different Pilots, to obtain feedback on the support provided by the Methodological Guidelines in order to reach the goals of the cycle. A questionnaire per Pilot is expected.


On the Innovation Cycle

For this cycle, five key tasks were defined: Modification/ Deployment of service/s, Activation and engagement of the Open Communities, Release of the service/s, Reinforcement of the open approach (deployment, use and activation of OS Infrastructures for the Pilot, progress on Licenses and business models definition, etc.) and Validation with end users. These five tasks were organized as a roadmap and their results gathered in the Second Cycle section in the wiki.

  • Do you think this roadmap was appropriate?
  • Had your Pilot any difficulty that more methodological support could avoid, in finishing successfully this roadmap?
  • The length of the 2nd and 3rd Innovation cycle has been extended one and two months respectively due to the requested extension of the project. Considering this modification, do you think the length of the Second Innovation cycle was adequate to the objectives that were established?

Activation of the Open Communities

At the beginning of the pilot some effort was invested in facilitating the discussion of literature on this matter, in particular The Art of Community by Jono Bacon, Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the Open Source movement. From community to business by Andrea Bonaccorsi, Cristina Rossi and Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project by Karl Fogel

  • Did the literature discussed provide to you new tools and knowledge for the organization and activation of your community?
  • Were those efforts successful?
  • Do you think that the time dedicated to the discussion of these issues was enough?


One of the objectives of the 2nd Innovation Cycle is to implement the modifications that were identified as necessary during the Validation sessions of the previous cycle

  • Do you think that this iterative implementation method was useful for the development of your Pilot’s services?
  • Have you been able to implement all the modifications identified in the previous cycle? If not, why?

Validation with Users

Validation with users provided an important feedback when testing modifications made to previously/newly released services.

  • When validating the modifications to the services made during this cycle, has the users’ experience improved respect to the validation session conducted during the previous cycle? In other terms, in users’ eyes, have the services improved along cycles?
  • During the validation sessions conducted during the 2nd Innovation cycle, did the users’ reported bugs and modification requests that weren’t been identified in the previous cycle?

Monitoring activities

During the 2nd Innovation Cycle, a new monitoring method was implemented: the in situ monitoring. Based on these activities a report was created providing a holistic vision of the pilots including strengths and threats of the Pilots. Also, an identification of possible synergies and good practices to be shared among pilots was made.

  • Were these activities and the holistic vision provided in the report useful for your pilot?
  • Do you agree with the suggestions provided related to the sharing of best practices and synergies involving your pilot?

Any further suggestions?


  1. Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation: Researching a new Paradigm, Oxford University Press (2006), 3.
  2. Rosted, J., User driven innovation, results and recommendations, FOR A (2005), 29.
  3. Wise Hansson, E., Understanding user-driven innovation TemaNord , 12.
  4. Pénin, J., C. Hussler, T. Burger-Helmchen, New shapes and new stakes: A portrait of open innovation as a promising phenomenon, ´Journal of Innovation Economics n7 (2011) 17.
  5. Hippel, von E., The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process, ´Research policy 5 (1976) 212-239, 212.
  6. Hippel, von E. Democratizing innovation MIT Press Cambridge (2005), 4.
  7. PEOPLE DoW, Anex page 2.>
  8. Enkel, E, O Grassmann and H. Chesbrough, Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon, ´R&D management 39-4 2009), 314.
  9. Fredberg, T., M. Elmquist, S. Ollila, Managing Open Innovation: Present findings and future directionsñ VINNOVA 02204 (2007), 45.
  10. Schaffers, H., García Gúzmán, J, Merz, C., Living Labs for Enhancing Innovation: Methodology and Implementation´ in Living Labs for Rural Development, (2010), 37.
  11. Jong, de J., Vanhaverbeke, W., et all. Policies for Open Innovation: Theory, Framework and Cases, ´Vision Era-Net project, (2008), 21.
  12. Pénin, J., C. Hussler, T. Burger-Helmchen, New shapes and new stakes: A portrait of open innovation as a promising phenomenon, ´Journal of Innovation Economics n7 (2011) 17.
  13. Chesbrough, 11.
  14. Baskerville, R.: Investigating Information Systems with Action Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 2 (Article 19) (1999). Available at:
  15. Schaffers, Hans; Garcia Guzman, Javier; Merz, Christian: An Action Research Approach to Rural Living Labs Innovation. In: P. Cunningham and M. Cunningham (Eds), Collaboration and the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications, Case Studies. IOS Press, pp 617-624, 2008.
  16. Javier García Guzmán, Ana García, José Ángel Fornás, Lorena Bourg, Javier Liarte, Carmen Barrera. Social Spaces for Research and Innovation: CISVI Project. In Progress.
  17. 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 Bloor, M., Frankland, J. Thomas, M., and Stewart, S. (2001). Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage Publishing.
  18. 18.0 18.1 Preece, J., Sharp, H., and Rogers, Y. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Nielsen, J. (1997). The Use and Misuse of Focus Groups, IEEE Software, 14, (1), 94-95.
  20. 20.0 20.1 >Reichwald, R., Seifert, S., Walcher, D., and Piller, F. (2004). Customers as Part of Value Webs: Towards a Framework for Webbed Customer Innovation Tools. In Proceedings of 2004 Hawaii International Conference on Computer Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii, 2004.
  21. 21.0 21.1 >von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, (7), 791–805
  22. 22.0 22.1 Eason, K. (1987). Information technology and organizational change. London: Taylor and Francis
  23. 23.0 23.1 Carroll, J. M. (2000). Five reasons for scenario-based design. Interacting with computers, 13, (1), 43-60.
  24. 24.0 24.1 Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Indiana: Macmillan.
  25. CoreLabs. (2007a). Building Sustainable Competiveness - Living Labs Roadmap 2007- 2010: Luleå University of Technology - Centre for Distancespanning Technology.
  26. Ståhlbröst, A. (2008). Forming Future IT – The Living Lab Way of User Involvement. Diss. Luleå Tekniska Universitet
  27. Baecker, R.M., Grudin, J., Buxton, W.A.S. and Greenberg, S. (1995). Readings in humancomputer interaction: toward the year 2000. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
  28. Esbojörn Ebbesson, Virtual Settings for Co-Creation in a Living Lab, Master of Applied Information Technology Thesis, Report No. 2009-009. ISSN: 1651-4769
  29. The VRE1 Programme: achievements and lessons learnt. Summary report. The Tavistock Institute. Kerstin Junge, Kari Hadjivassiliou, Johnny Kelleher and Chris Ramsden, September 2007
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2 APOLLON, Advanced Pilots of Living Labs Operating in Networks, D.5.2 Methodology for eParticipation through eMedia, ICT PSP, 7th Framework Program. European Comission
  31. Nielsen Norman Group, 2003
  32. Patricia Sullivan, Multiple methods and the usability of interface prototypes: the complementarity of laboratory observation and focus groups, Proceedings of the 9th annual international conference on Systems documentation, p.106-112, October 1991, Chicago
  33. Open Cities, ICT PSP, FP7, D6.1: Report on Living Lab activities for Data Set selection & definition on Sensor Networks
  34. Periphèria, ICT PSP, FP7, D2.1 - Arena Models
Personal tools