Changes for page Living Lab Key Performance Indicators

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,110 +1,145 @@
1	1	Here we present the current version of the Living Lab Key Performance Indicators, derived by the activities.
2	2
3		-Table 8 Living Lab Key Performance Indicators
4	4
5		-|Chapter|Criterion|KPI
6		-|(% rowspan="9" %)**Strategy**|(% rowspan="4" %)Governance|(((
	4	+Living Lab Key Performance Indicators
	5	+
	6	+|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Chapter|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Criterion|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)KPI
	7	+|(% rowspan="9" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Strategy**|(% rowspan="4" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Governance|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
7	7	1. % of (active) involvement of a balanced and diverse group of stakeholders in the development of the vision & mission of the living lab (e.g., all Q4 represented is 100%)
8	8	)))
9		-|(((
	10	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	11	+(% start="2" %)
10	10	1. % of participation of a balanced and diverse group of stakeholders in the governance of the living lab (strategic & operational roles and decision-making processes)
11	11	)))
12		-|(((
	14	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	15	+(% start="3" %)
13	13	1. Presence of partner agreements/arrangements for co-innovation
14	14	)))
15		-|(((
	18	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	19	+(% start="4" %)
16	16	1. Completeness of a strategic roadmap for the living lab (SMART goals, responsibilities, and decision-making processes)
17	17	)))
18		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Business Model|(((
	22	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Business Model|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	23	+(% start="5" %)
19	19	1. Completeness of the described business model approach (value propositions, problems & solutions, activities & resources, key stakeholders, customers, users, costs & revenues, metrics & impacts)
20	20	)))
21		-|(((
	26	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	27	+(% start="6" %)
22	22	1. Number of (different) services offered by the living lab (e.g., stakeholder engagement) covering (all) different phases of the innovation cycle
23	23	)))
24		-|(% rowspan="3" %)Culture & Collaboration|(((
	30	+|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Culture & Collaboration|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	31	+(% start="7" %)
25	25	1. Presence of internal & external business & client relation management process/strategy (including contracts)
26	26	)))
27		-|(((
	34	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	35	+(% start="8" %)
28	28	1. Frequency of internal communication & results sharing to keep partners informed & aligned
29	29	)))
30		-|(((
	38	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	39	+(% start="9" %)
31	31	1. Number of regional, national & international collaborations beyond the scope of an individual living lab project
32	32	)))
33		-|(% rowspan="5" %)**Operations**|Human Resources|(((
	42	+|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Human Resources|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	43	+(% start="10" %)
34	34	1. % of Implementation of needed internal roles and responsibilities within the operational living lab team in a flexible way (are all roles sufficiently attributed depending on the size of the operational living lab team)
35	35	)))
36		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Operations|(((
	46	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Operations|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	47	+(% start="11" %)
37	37	1. Time spent within successfully completed projects and/or activities related to the living lab (how many weeks/months/years of experience does the living lab has in running projects and/or activities)
38	38	)))
39		-|(((
	50	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	51	+(% start="12" %)
40	40	1. Completeness & frequency of internal self-monitoring processes (how often is the living lab monitoring essential parts of their organization: strategic, financial, equipment & infrastructure, policy, project outcomes)
41	41	)))
42		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(((
	54	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	55	+(% start="13" %)
43	43	1. % accessibility in time to facilities (e.g., offices, co-creation spaces, testing facilities...)
44	44	)))
45		-|(((
	58	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	59	+(% start="14" %)
46	46	1. % accessibility in time to hard- & software (e.g., co-creation materials, computers, wearables, interaction software, polling/survey software...)
47	47	)))
48		-|(% rowspan="4" %)**Openness**|(% rowspan="2" %)Innovation partnerships, projects & processes|(((
	62	+|(% rowspan="4" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Openness**|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Innovation partnerships, projects & processes|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	63	+(% start="15" %)
49	49	1. % of implementation needed processes to safeguard a reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration
50	50	)))
51		-|(((
	66	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	67	+(% start="16" %)
52	52	1. % of implementation of needed processes to safeguard an ethical approach (e.g., regulatory requirements, data protection needed, etc.)
53	53	)))
54		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Ownership of results|(((
	70	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Ownership of results|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	71	+(% start="17" %)
55	55	1. % of implementation of needed rules & regulations regarding the use, sharing & licensing of data and IP of collaborative outcomes
56	56	)))
57		-|(((
	74	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	75	+(% start="18" %)
58	58	1. % of implementation of user agreements (data, IPR, rights, liabilities)
59	59	)))
60		-|(% rowspan="6" %)**Users & reality**|(% rowspan="2" %)User centricity|(((
	78	+|(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Users & reality**|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)User centricity|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	79	+(% start="19" %)
61	61	1. % of diversity of stakeholders involved as end-users in living lab projects and/or activities
62	62	)))
63		-|(((
	82	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	83	+(% start="20" %)
64	64	1. Degree of influence end-users exerts on the different phases of the innovation cycle (from informing to empowerment)
65	65	)))
66		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(((
	86	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	87	+(% start="21" %)
67	67	1. Degree of involvement of end-users in the different phases of the innovation cycle e.g., problem space, solution space, implementation space...)
68	68	)))
69		-|(((
	90	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	91	+(% start="22" %)
70	70	1. Degree of use of real-life contexts of users in the different phases of the innovation cycle
71	71	)))
72		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Tools & methods|(((
	94	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Tools & methods|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	95	+(% start="23" %)
73	73	1. Degree of appropriateness of tools & methods used for the different phases of the innovation cycle
74	74	)))
75		-|(((
	98	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	99	+(% start="24" %)
76	76	1. Frequency of external communication & results sharing to keep end-users and external stakeholders informed and engaged
77	77	)))
78		-|(% rowspan="5" %)**Impact & value**|(% rowspan="4" %)Co-created values|(((
	102	+|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Impact & value**|(% rowspan="4" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Co-created values|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	103	+(% start="25" %)
79	79	1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders (from the whole value chain) concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle
80	80	)))
81		-|(((
	106	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	107	+(% start="26" %)
82	82	1. Frequency of knowledge sharing (including results) with relevant (internal & external) stakeholders from the value chain
83	83	)))
84		-|(((
	110	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	111	+(% start="27" %)
85	85	1. Number of relevant (open) educational resources (including datasets, trainings) shared/provided for relevant stakeholders
86	86	)))
87		-|(((
	114	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	115	+(% start="28" %)
88	88	1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders concerning knowledge sharing & capacity building (learning materials & infrastructures)
89	89	)))
90		-|Impacts|(((
	118	+|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Impacts|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	119	+(% start="29" %)
91	91	1. Completeness & frequency of impact assessments (how often is the living lab monitoring different types of impacts they are generating: societal, environmental, economic, regulatory, academic)
92	92	)))
93		-|(% rowspan="6" %)**Stability & harmonization**|(% rowspan="3" %)Stability|(((
	122	+|(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Stability & harmonization**|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Stability|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	123	+(% start="30" %)
94	94	1. % Increase in number of relationships (with a reliable partner network and customers)
95	95	)))
96		-|(((
	126	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	127	+(% start="31" %)
97	97	1. Level of financial sustainability based on a balanced & diversified set of fundings (structural vs. project-based) & revenue streams
98	98	)))
99		-|(((
	130	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	131	+(% start="32" %)
100	100	1. Number of living lab value propositions, flexible to adapt to new circumstances
101	101	)))
102		-|(% rowspan="3" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(((
	134	+|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	135	+(% start="33" %)
103	103	1. % Increase in number of partners committed to scale up products/solutions/services developed by the living lab
104	104	)))
105		-|(((
	138	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	139	+(% start="34" %)
106	106	1. Number of products/solutions/services (able to be) scaled-up
107	107	)))
108		-|(((
	142	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	143	+(% start="35" %)
109	109	1. Number of participation in (cross-border/cross-sectoral) initiatives/projects based on harmonized living lab infrastructures, standards, skills, methods, tools processes or services
110	110	)))