Rural living labs- user based innovation for the rural areas L. Zurita1 and T. Kallai2 1 Atos Origin, Albarracín 25, 28037, Madrid, Spain; [email protected] 2 TR-Associates, 1 Export Ln, Archbald, PA, USA; [email protected] Abstract Rural Living Labs (RLL) constitute a new and not yet validated approach of enabling user driven ICT-based innovation initiatives aimed to the development in rural areas. Living labs provide a context for open innovation based on partnerships between all stakeholders. This paper presents some of the characteristics that distinguish the Living Labs from other development methodologies, and presents initial lessons learnt from the C@R Integrated Project. The process of establishing the Living Labs the involvement of users, their roles in the experimentation and innovation processes, and the suitability of the methodology for the rural environment are being discussed in order to reach some conclusions about the suitability of the RLL as tools for development in the rural areas. Keywords: living labs, user involvement, open innovation Introduction Living Lab is a concept that includes both a methodology for development, research and innovation and the communities where those activities are taking place. The Living Lab as approach represents a methodology for sensing, prototyping, validating and refining complex solutions in multiple and evolving real life contexts. The idea originates from William Mitchell from MIT (Mulder, 2006). As a research and development environment, a Living Lab can be defined as ‘an experimentation environment in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and in which (end) users are considered ‘co-producers’ (Ballon et al., 2005: 3). Thus, a core idea of Living Labs is the humancentric approach, with technology providers working closely with users at all stages of product and service development. The main function of a Living Lab is to exchange ideas and experiences to foster decision-making processes oriented to innovation and sustainable entrepreneurship. It includes human and institutional components but it is not merely focused on local interactions, as it also takes into account the support of social technologies and the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Although there is not, and because of the very different innovation contexts cannot be, one single approach to Living Labs, the concept should be distinguished from more common approaches such as testbeds for testing of a technology or application in a closed laboratory environment and field trials for testing in a limited but still real-life environment (Ballon et al., 2006). C@R (Collaboration @Rural) project is an Integrated Project that uses Living Labs as tools for rural development, by developing a series ICT based tools and services in a series of Rural Living Labs (RLL). C@R aims to identify develop and validate technological responses to actual barriers jeopardizing the sustainable development in rural areas, an important goal taking into account that ‘Rural’ in Europe counts for 80% of European area and 22% of European inhabitants. Conditions for the development of an ICT infrastructure are different from the more populated city areas – the infrastructures may be significantly more expensive to develop per user, which is an explanation of why the ICT infrastructure in rural areas in most countries lags significantly behind those in urban areas. It is also important to research into the conditions for development of IT applications in environments where there is traditionally a lower educational level. The low educational level,

EFITA conference ’09

569

however, does not apply to the new rural entrepreneurship, that is showing possibilities for new activities in rural areas: rural tourism, niche agriculture (such as organic or biodynamic products), innovative artisans or white collar telecommuters are showing great capacities for innovation and growth) for the sustaining of a well functioning rural areas. In the C@R project, ICT is a path to reach sustainable rural development, and not as a goal in itself. Rural development is about meeting the expectations of citizens in rural areas, aiming to a deeper integration into the information society and promoting economic development- diminishing the digital divide existing between urban and rural areas. The Living Labs are diffe are interpreting the user participation concept in different ways, yet the active involvement of users is the goal of the project, so an evolution in this direction is taking place in the different sites. Those site are: South Africa Living Lab, Frascati Living Lab, Turku Living Lab and Soria Living Lab (exploring the Service to the entrepreneur community), Cudillero Living Lab (working with local fishers), Czech Republic Living Lab (working with issues of geospatial information), and the Homokháti Living Lab (on line communities. This paper will describe the user based innovation approach of the LL and how it adapts to a rural context, as well a presenting the example of a RLL- the Homokháti will be described in some detail. Before discussing the various mechanisms of user involvement, we revisit the concept of open innovation which is fundamental to Living labs. Although the established view of open innovation is innovation in cooperation with other companies, thus making a company more open to external knowledge and ideas (Chesbrough, 2006), we extend the concept to innovation happening in collaboration with society: democratic innovation, and innovation though mass collaboration (Von Hippel, 2005; Tapscott and Williams, 2006). These ideas connect with the idea of innovation originating from end-users, who are considered as a source of innovation and creativity. Innovation reminds sometimes of the parable of the new wine in old bottles. Somehow, we are supposed to create innovation and still work the usual way. Using new sources of creativity, though, may require us to use new procedures, processes and styles of communication and interactionIn the case of Living Labs, it means changes in the way of interacting, communication and working. In the Living Labs the roles of developers and users change, creating innovation in the rural environment. While there seems to be an established understanding of the convenience of including different stakeholders in the development of software-based information systems, it is less normal to include the wider user community. In the next section new ways of including users in the developing process are described. Open innovation and user involvement in living labs In the Living Labs, people are considered as the source of innovation. Recent ideas like ‘mass collaboration’ (Tapscott and Williams, 2006) and ‘democratic innovation’ (Von Hippel, 2006) adding the element of public participation and communities, are taking this concept further to shape an ongoing development towards large-scale, user-driven and collaborative innovation in ICT-based services. As Thomke and Von Hippel (2006) show, the idea of customers as innovators is not unrealistic. The concept of Living Labs in closely related to the concept of open innovation. Although the established view of open innovation is innovation in cooperation with other companies, thus making a company more open to external knowledge and ideas (Chesbrough, 2006), we extend the concept to innovation happening in collaboration with society: democratic innovation, and innovation though mass collaboration (Von Hippel, 2005; Tapscott and Williams, 2006). These

570

EFITA conference ’09

ideas connect with the idea of innovation originating from end-users, who are considered as a source of innovation and creativity. Innovation reminds sometimes of the parable of the new wine in old bottles. Somehow, we are supposed to create innovation and still work the usual way. Using new sources of creativity, though, may require us to use new procedures, processes and styles of communication and interaction. In the case of Living Labs, itLabs meansresponsible changes in the waytoofbe interacting, and working. that the Living claim using, yetcommunication there is no description of In the Living Labs theactivities roles of developers andUser usersinvolvement change, creating innovation in the concrete or methods. activities are on therural otherenvironment hand well The existing material principles ofdesign the LL,inand certainplaces general(Muller considerations about described in thepresents realm ofthe participatory working 2002). Muller the value of developing, prototypingactivities and testing real life environments (Mulder, 2005;aBallon claims that user involvement areinmore successful in a “third space”, space et al.,of2005; Nitaamo et al., 2006), but there between are no concrete endsymmetric exchange of experience peopledescription belonging of to activities different with realms users.(developers, The document ‘Methodend-users). and Tool Inventory and Taxonomy’ (Corelabs, collects designers, The Rural Living Labs, by bringing2006) design and a everyday realms, are good to create list ofdevelopment methods thatprocesses have beentoused in different Living Labs,environments but no detail about whatthese kind of “third spaces”. activities that have taken place is available: the document best practices state the name of some of the methods that the Living Labs responsible claim to be using, yet there is no description of concrete activities or methods. User involvement activities are on the other hand well described through intermediaries in theCommunication realm of participatory design in working places (Muller, 2002). Muller claims that user involvement activities areofmore successful in a ‘third a space of symmetric The development products and services is aspace’, complex process, involvingexchange many of experience between people belonging to different realmsof(developers, end-users). different parties; a certain degree of collection inputs fromdesigners, those parties may The Rural happen Living Labs, bringing design and development to everydaythe realms, are good in thebydevelopment process. A traditionalprocesses way of managing user inputs into the process is usually through the use of intermediarie . Such intermediaries being environments to create these ‘third spaces’.

people who are able to communicate within the different spheres, understand their language”,through and exchange messages between the different domains (Figure 1). Thus, Communication intermediaries ideally, intermediaries would bringis information about involving users to the development team, The development of products and services a complex process, many different parties; that will then use it in the development process. In some of our Living Labs settings, a certain degree of collection of inputs from those parties may happen in the development process. strong local partners are involved that have as mediators catalysts A traditional way of managing the user inputs intoworked the process is usuallyand through the in usethe of process of establishing the Living Labs, and see themselves as representatives of the intermediarie. Such intermediaries being people who are able to communicate within the different user community. spheres, understand their language’, and exchange messages between the different domains (Figure

1). Thus, ideally, intermediaries would bring information about users to the development team, that will then usethe it inuse theof development process. some of our Living In Labs local However, intermediaries has In some shortcomings. thissettings, type ofstrong mediation partners are isinvolved have worked and catalysts in the process of establishing there always that interpretation byasthemediators intermediary, and information is filtered and lost. the Living and see themselves representatives of the user community. This Labs, is critical if there is onlyasone intermediary: possibly, no single person can However, the useinofdepth intermediaries has someof shortcomings. type of mediation thereMoreover, is always describe the complexities the practiceInofthis a community of users. interpretation by the intermediary, information is filtered andthat lost.is This is critical if there is only the intermediary is usuallyand chosen for being a person ICT knowledgeable, and one intermediary: noview singleofperson can describe in depthofthe complexities of the practice of may offer apossibly, distorted the level of familiarity other users with ICT. a community of users. Moreover, the intermediary is usually chosen for being a person that is ICT knowledgeable, and may offer a distorted view of the level of familiarity of other users with ICT. Furthermore, in this traditional process the development team takes charge of the process, managing the communications channels and controlling the communication messages. If there are intermediaries, communication usually happens with the development team consulting the In t e r m e d ia r ie s U s e rs

E x p e rts

Figure 1. Communication through mediators.

EFITA conference ’09 Figure 1: Communication through mediators

571

Furthermore, in this traditional process the development team takes charge of the

intermediaries to define requirements or helping in the testing process. This ‘consultation’ assumes an asymmetry of knowledge, assuming that development team is more knowledgeable and bringing the communication to their sphere of knowledge. This may impede the discovery of unexpected behaviours, or the transmission of the knowledge that is sticky, that is, that is embedded into practice and has not been clearly articulated. Creating a third space for dialogue The aim is to establish a direct communication among the different parties involved in development process: this is an interdisciplinary team, including project managers, software developers, infrastructure experts, and the different local parties, such as policy representatives, business associations and also including the end-users, that should be both the target group and co-creators. To do this, we try to create a ‘third space’ for dialogue (Figure 2) where all stakeholders, including the users, can meet and exchange (Muller, 2002). This ‘third space’ is a space where control does not rest on any of the parties involved, but where there is a process of dialogue and sharing among the parties. Moreover, there is participation from all parties involved, accepting the diversity within the different groups. Users are different, and so are providers, developers, etc. In those meetings in the third space, group dynamics are applied, in order to help the process and to obtain concrete results of the sessions. Advantagesdevelopment of knowledge sharing in a third space team consulting the intermediaries to define requirements or helping in More information is process. obtainedThis this“consultation” way than in assumes traditional methods, because it may force the the testing an asymmetry of knowledge, development team is more bringing developers assuming to think inthat different ways and show themknowledgeable some aspects and of reality thatthe reveal themselves communication to their sphere of knowledge. only in a very dedicated observation of the context. This may impede the discovery of unexpected behaviours, or the transmission of the knowledge that istherefore sticky, that that The knowledge sharing is more open and more intensive in this third spaceweis, can make is embedded into practice and has not been clearly articulated. better use of the resources available, and have access to other kind of knowledge that not always is well articulate and easy to capture with the traditional methods. The exchange of knowledge is more intensive and amore the symmetry in the interchange of knowledge between the Creating third open spacedue for to dialogue parties, andThe the aim ‘inmediation’, that is, thecommunication non-existence among of interpretation layers. is to establish a direct the different parties involved in Also, it is important thatprocess: there isthis symmetry of knowledgeteam, in thisincluding model; aproject basic managers, understanding in development is an interdisciplinary developers, infrastructure experts, and the localmodel parties,creates such as Living Labssoftware is that the users are themselves experts in their owndifferent realm. This symmetry policy representatives, business associations and also including the end-users, that in the interchange of information among the different partners. It contributes to a change of culture should be both the target group and co-creators. To do this, we try to create a “third in the nature of interchange of information, with the developers (and maybe some well defined space” for dialogue (Figure 2) where all stakeholders, including the users, can meet stakeholders) the ones(Muller, that know and the users as the ones that do not know. By creating a third andasexchange 2002). space of interchange, we bring the dialogue to a neutral ground, where the different capabilities can be combined.

Stakeholders

Users

Experts

Third space

Figure 2. Meeting in a third space.

Figure 2: Meeting in a third space

572

This “third space” is a space where control does not rest on any EFITA of the parties conference ’09 involved, but where there is a process of dialogue and sharing among the parties. Moreover, there is participation from all parties involved, accepting the diversity within the different groups. Users are different, and so are providers, developers, etc.

This symmetry is important if we want to make services that are well accepted for the public. The choice and use of services depend on a very complex mix of motivations, and the non-rational, more or articulated or even conscious, can be decisive for the users/consumers to choose/adopt a service. It is worth to unveil and take into account all those factors on which a product success or fiasco will depend on. And for that it is important to remember that the users are experts in their own life and environment. The dialogue will allow the users to use their own language and address situations in ways that are comfortable to them. Thus, they feel free to express themselves, and can reveal information that was unexpected to the development team, and probably would never have been reached them is the users were forced to express themselves in questionnaires, or expected to adopt the developers’ technical language. Creating third spaces in the living labs The C@R Living labs are driven by the Living Lab leaders and their development team, in collaboration with local partners that function as intermediaries. In the first place they set the agenda and steer the establishment of the Living lab, and the initial phases of the work. Our experiences so far indicate that it has been difficult to approach and involve the intended end-users. Issues of expertise and knowledge arise: the Living Labs leaders may feel that because of their lack of knowledge the users do not need to be approached and involved in the design, development and validation process. The knowledge of the users of their own practice might not be sufficiently recognized. However, also the users might have insufficient interest to be involved. It is then necessary to provide tools and techniques to make sure that outside professionals can meet the community of users in a symmetry of understanding and exchange. The issue of how to create the third space has to be dealt with in all the different Living Labs, depending on their context: the development experiences of the Living Labs leaders, the user approach of the development team, the attitude of stakeholders/intermediaries and the target group. Generally, it will be easier to contact users which profile is closer to the one of the development team, that is, higher education and familiarity with ICT, and there will be a need for more facilitation and also patience with users that have a different profile. Prototypes or mock-ups are now being used as a boundary object, that is, an object that is common for different groups, and is used as an instrument to facilitate the dialogue. It can be a low technology prototype or mock-up, such a simple animated screen shots, which are cheap and easy to build, as in the Cudillero Living Lab. It also can be a more advanced one, for example a portal with some functioning services, as in Frascati and the Czech Republic Living labs (the use of prototypes as boundary objects is described in more detail below). In other Living labs, the contact with the endusers has already been established and will use traditional communication channels, such as users in the Homokati Living lab, or the neighbourhood meetings in the Turku Archipelago Living Lab. This third space is one of the important results and instruments of the C@R project, and in our view it is a critical condition for its sustainability Design in use Design in use is a continued activity, taking place during the life cycle of the products, where inputs form the users will be incorporated into the final product,: the developers deliver a product that is to be considered a proposal, but the product continues to develop through the users interaction with it. When users start using the product in real settings, previously unknown requirements or

EFITA conference ’09

573

needs may be revealed: thus there is a difference between what the initial requirements describe (technology as designed), and what the users actually need (technology in use): ‘The differences between Technology as Designed and Technologies in Use reflect the gap between the expected and actual requirements for technological support. Technology as Designed represents the views of designers, marketers and users of the requirements captured during design, while Technologies in Use capture users’ needs that are expressed through their actions as they undertake their everyday activities in their use situations. The features, functions and theory of use of Technology as Designed are shaped by a range of influences (social, political, economic and technical) during the design process. However, the technology has not yet reached its final and stable state. We suggest that the design of the technology is completed by users who configure and customize the technology, who construct ‘workarounds’ to circumvent the limitations of the embodied theory and who use the features and functions in unanticipated ways and for unanticipated purposes or activities. Technologies in Use thus represent the completion of the design process: the initial design process results in the development of an ICT that is adapted (changed features or functions) and interpreted (used in different ways for different purposes) within the capabilities provided by the Technology as Designed’ (Carroll, 2004). A Living lab is an environment suitable for the design in use process, as we have access to test in real conditions. The product is then finished in the everyday use of the users that may well use in unexpected ways, adapting the tool to their practice. A careful observation of the use of the product will provide feedback to the developers that will be able to include this knowledge into new versions of the product. In theory this process would be never-ending. However, as the work in the LL has to be realistic, we will work with some interactions defined in time, and freeze versions of the product in defined periods of time. Again, here the contact between the development team and the users is direct, the team will observe how the product is used, instead of forcing the users to put their needs and request in some standard forms. Thus, the product will be adapted to the use of it at the practice situation, saving expensive mismatches and making the use of the product more efficient. On line communities – an example of living labs The Homokháti Living Lab is situated in the Homokháti small region in the southern part of Hungary. The goal of the Hungarian living lab is to foster the formation of online communities provide existing rural communities with technical support. For geographical and demographical reasons the Internet penetration in rural areas is far from that in larger cities. It seems that current business models and technologies can not achieve breakthrough in this area. Therefore new business models, closer to real life situations in rural areas, are needed. From the point of view of technology and business models the Wireless Mesh Network solution fits perfectly into this picture. The network infrastructure is managed by volunteer citizens. As the whole system is self-healing and self-tuning, the system can be expanded in a plug and play manner without special knowledge. With this solution the whole community will have network access and will be able to communicate with each other through this data network. The Internet access can be provided by volunteers sharing their already existing wired connections. A novel platform for Internet Service Providers (W-ISP) is being built in this Living Lab. In this platform stakeholders can cooperate and have a common efficient access network, the online communities. The Online Digital Communities are connected communities that combining broadband communication infrastructure; flexible, service oriented computing infrastructures based on open industry standards; and innovative services to meet the needs of local governments, business sectors in urban, rural and remote areas and their employees, citizens and businesses.

574

EFITA conference ’09

A Digital Community provides interoperable, Internet based government services that enable ubiquitous connectivity to transform key government processes, both internally across departments and employees and externally to citizens and businesses. The cooperation among W-ISPs is solved with a common access network. The business model for cooperating W-ISPs will be based on a single partly voluntary maintained access network. The goal is to provide free Internet access for the citizens. Sustainability is an issue to be addressed. The solution to be tested is the use of advertisements of broadband access for financing. Users are the ultimate owners of the network, and they are contributing to the design and deployement of it. The communication with the users was developed slowly, using the connections with local representatives (Municipality and a local cooperative) developing a mutual trust through time- Trust proved to be a key question. Now, regular face to face meetings with our end users at the Mórakert PO premises are held, as well as ad-hoc communication using telephone, and group management (focus groups, creative groups, tester groups, etc.). Online communications are being developed. User based innovation in rural areas- lessons learnt The C@R project has been a significant effort to test the use of this methodology in rural settings, that, as already described, have to be taken into account when using the Living Lab methodology: • The education level in the rural areas is usually lower than in urban areas. This has to be taken into account when designing programmes of user training. Needless to say, it does not mean that the learning is necessarily more difficult, if the motivation is in place, but that trainers should adopt learning techniques that adapt to the target group. • ICT penetration is less than? in urban areas. This is related with the lower education level already mentioned, and with the geographical aspect: in many countries the conditions of the infrastructure make Internet penetration much more difficult. • Social relations are different in the rural areas. A lesson learnt in the C@R project is that trust is an issue in many Living Labs: the construction of a community and the building of the interpersonal relations require time and effort. This has to be taken into account in the process of designing and setting up Living labs, making sure that the necessary time and effort is dedicated to the task. We have not observed that the rural dwellers should be more reluctant to innovation than urban habitants: as soon as they perceive that there is a benefit in new tools or practices, they adopt it readily. Living labs can have an advantage in that, as test is done in real life circumstances, the promoters of the change will be persons that already belong to the local community, and the success of the initiatives will be distributed by word of mouth, which is a particularly effective way in these areas. Other characteristic of Living Labs that make them a good methodology for rural areas is that products and services are tested in real life conditions. Rural conditions can be difficult to reproduce in laboratories (outdoor activities, infrastructure limitations, etc.), so the advantage of testing in real conditions is obvious. Thus, overall, Living Labs have shown to be a valuable instrument for the development, testing and validation of products and services in rural areas. In the C@R project, it has been used for ICT-based products and services, but it can be used in other fields as well. Living labs can, in short, be a new tool to unleash rural users knowledge, resources and capacities.

EFITA conference ’09

575

References Ballon, P., Pierson, J., Delaere, S.: (2005) ‘Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: examining european practice’. in: Conference Proceedings of 16th European Regional Conference by the International Telecommunications Society (ITS), Porto, Portugal, 4-6 September, Carroll, J. (2004). ‘Completing design in use: closing the appropriation cycle’, Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2004), Turku, Finland Chesbrough, H: (2006)’Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation,’ in Henry Chesbrough, Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West, eds., Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12. CoreLabs D5.1 (2006) ‘Method and Tool Inventory and Taxonomy’. C@R Project Staff: (2006) ‘C@R – Collaboration at Rural – Description of Work’ – http://www.c-rural.eu García et al: (2007) ‘Methodological Framework for Human and User Centric Rural Living Labs. Paper presented at the e-challenges’ Conference, The Hague, 24-26 October Mulder, I. (2004) ‘Understanding designers, designing for understanding: collaborative learning and shared understanding in video-based communication.’ Ph.D. Thesis, Enschede, The Netherlands, Telematica Instituut. Muller, M: (2002) ‘Participatory design: the third space in HCI, The human-computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications’. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ. Niitamo, V.P., Kulkki S., Eriksson M., Hribernik K.A.: (2006) ‘State-of-the-Art and Good Practice in the Field of Living Labs’ D Tapscott, AD Williams,(2006) – ‘Wikinomics-How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Penguin Books’, New York Thomke, S., Hippel, E. Von (2006): ‘Customers as innovators. A new way to create value.’Harvard Business Review OnPoint, Spring 2006 Zurita, L: (2007) ‘User centric design: Designing in Living Labs.’ Paper presented at the ISAF Conference, Prague, 14-16 May

576

EFITA conference ’09