Changes for page Living Lab Key Performance Indicators

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -3,142 +3,142 @@
3	3	Table 8 Living Lab Key Performance Indicators
4	4
5	5	|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Chapter|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Criterion|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)KPI
6		-|(% rowspan="9" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Strategy**|(% rowspan="4" %)Governance|(((
	6	+|(% 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		-|(((
	9	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
10	10	(% start="2" %)
11	11	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)
12	12	)))
13		-|(((
	13	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
14	14	(% start="3" %)
15	15	1. Presence of partner agreements/arrangements for co-innovation
16	16	)))
17		-|(((
	17	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
18	18	(% start="4" %)
19	19	1. Completeness of a strategic roadmap for the living lab (SMART goals, responsibilities, and decision-making processes)
20	20	)))
21		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Business Model|(((
	21	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Business Model|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
22	22	(% start="5" %)
23	23	1. Completeness of the described business model approach (value propositions, problems & solutions, activities & resources, key stakeholders, customers, users, costs & revenues, metrics & impacts)
24	24	)))
25		-|(((
	25	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
26	26	(% start="6" %)
27	27	1. Number of (different) services offered by the living lab (e.g., stakeholder engagement) covering (all) different phases of the innovation cycle
28	28	)))
29		-|(% rowspan="3" %)Culture & Collaboration|(((
	29	+|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Culture & Collaboration|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
30	30	(% start="7" %)
31	31	1. Presence of internal & external business & client relation management process/strategy (including contracts)
32	32	)))
33		-|(((
	33	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
34	34	(% start="8" %)
35	35	1. Frequency of internal communication & results sharing to keep partners informed & aligned
36	36	)))
37		-|(((
	37	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
38	38	(% start="9" %)
39	39	1. Number of regional, national & international collaborations beyond the scope of an individual living lab project
40	40	)))
41		-|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|Human Resources|(((
	41	+|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Human Resources|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
42	42	(% start="10" %)
43	43	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)
44	44	)))
45		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Operations|(((
	45	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Operations|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
46	46	(% start="11" %)
47	47	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)
48	48	)))
49		-|(((
	49	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
50	50	(% start="12" %)
51	51	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)
52	52	)))
53		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(((
	53	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
54	54	(% start="13" %)
55	55	1. % accessibility in time to facilities (e.g., offices, co-creation spaces, testing facilities...)
56	56	)))
57		-|(((
	57	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
58	58	(% start="14" %)
59	59	1. % accessibility in time to hard- & software (e.g., co-creation materials, computers, wearables, interaction software, polling/survey software...)
60	60	)))
61		-|(% rowspan="4" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Openness**|(% rowspan="2" %)Innovation partnerships, projects & processes|(((
	61	+|(% 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" %)(((
62	62	(% start="15" %)
63	63	1. % of implementation needed processes to safeguard a reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration
64	64	)))
65		-|(((
	65	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
66	66	(% start="16" %)
67	67	1. % of implementation of needed processes to safeguard an ethical approach (e.g., regulatory requirements, data protection needed, etc.)
68	68	)))
69		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Ownership of results|(((
	69	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Ownership of results|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
70	70	(% start="17" %)
71	71	1. % of implementation of needed rules & regulations regarding the use, sharing & licensing of data and IP of collaborative outcomes
72	72	)))
73		-|(((
	73	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
74	74	(% start="18" %)
75	75	1. % of implementation of user agreements (data, IPR, rights, liabilities)
76	76	)))
77		-|(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Users & reality**|(% rowspan="2" %)User centricity|(((
	77	+|(% 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" %)(((
78	78	(% start="19" %)
79	79	1. % of diversity of stakeholders involved as end-users in living lab projects and/or activities
80	80	)))
81		-|(((
	81	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
82	82	(% start="20" %)
83	83	1. Degree of influence end-users exerts on the different phases of the innovation cycle (from informing to empowerment)
84	84	)))
85		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(((
	85	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
86	86	(% start="21" %)
87	87	1. Degree of involvement of end-users in the different phases of the innovation cycle e.g., problem space, solution space, implementation space...)
88	88	)))
89		-|(((
	89	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
90	90	(% start="22" %)
91	91	1. Degree of use of real-life contexts of users in the different phases of the innovation cycle
92	92	)))
93		-|(% rowspan="2" %)Tools & methods|(((
	93	+|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Tools & methods|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
94	94	(% start="23" %)
95	95	1. Degree of appropriateness of tools & methods used for the different phases of the innovation cycle
96	96	)))
97		-|(((
	97	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
98	98	(% start="24" %)
99	99	1. Frequency of external communication & results sharing to keep end-users and external stakeholders informed and engaged
100	100	)))
101		-|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Impact & value**|(% rowspan="4" %)Co-created values|(((
	101	+|(% 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" %)(((
102	102	(% start="25" %)
103	103	1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders (from the whole value chain) concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle
104	104	)))
105		-|(((
	105	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
106	106	(% start="26" %)
107	107	1. Frequency of knowledge sharing (including results) with relevant (internal & external) stakeholders from the value chain
108	108	)))
109		-|(((
	109	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
110	110	(% start="27" %)
111	111	1. Number of relevant (open) educational resources (including datasets, trainings) shared/provided for relevant stakeholders
112	112	)))
113		-|(((
	113	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
114	114	(% start="28" %)
115	115	1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders concerning knowledge sharing & capacity building (learning materials & infrastructures)
116	116	)))
117		-|Impacts|(((
	117	+|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Impacts|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
118	118	(% start="29" %)
119	119	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)
120	120	)))
121		-|(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Stability & harmonization**|(% rowspan="3" %)Stability|(((
	121	+|(% 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" %)(((
122	122	(% start="30" %)
123	123	1. % Increase in number of relationships (with a reliable partner network and customers)
124	124	)))
125		-|(((
	125	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
126	126	(% start="31" %)
127	127	1. Level of financial sustainability based on a balanced & diversified set of fundings (structural vs. project-based) & revenue streams
128	128	)))
129		-|(((
	129	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
130	130	(% start="32" %)
131	131	1. Number of living lab value propositions, flexible to adapt to new circumstances
132	132	)))
133		-|(% rowspan="3" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(((
	133	+|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
134	134	(% start="33" %)
135	135	1. % Increase in number of partners committed to scale up products/solutions/services developed by the living lab
136	136	)))
137		-|(((
	137	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
138	138	(% start="34" %)
139	139	1. Number of products/solutions/services (able to be) scaled-up
140	140	)))
141		-|(((
	141	+|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
142	142	(% start="35" %)
143	143	1. Number of participation in (cross-border/cross-sectoral) initiatives/projects based on harmonized living lab infrastructures, standards, skills, methods, tools processes or services
144	144	)))