Changes for page Living Lab Key Performance Indicators

Summary

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

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -1,145 +1,144 @@
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
3	3
4		-Living Lab Key Performance Indicators:
5		-
6	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" %)(((
	6	+|(% rowspan="9" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Strategy**|(% rowspan="4" %)Governance|(((
8	8	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%)
9	9	)))
10		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	9	+|(((
11	11	(% start="2" %)
12	12	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)
13	13	)))
14		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	13	+|(((
15	15	(% start="3" %)
16	16	1. Presence of partner agreements/arrangements for co-innovation
17	17	)))
18		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	17	+|(((
19	19	(% start="4" %)
20	20	1. Completeness of a strategic roadmap for the living lab (SMART goals, responsibilities, and decision-making processes)
21	21	)))
22		-|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Business Model|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	21	+|(% rowspan="2" %)Business Model|(((
23	23	(% start="5" %)
24	24	1. Completeness of the described business model approach (value propositions, problems & solutions, activities & resources, key stakeholders, customers, users, costs & revenues, metrics & impacts)
25	25	)))
26		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	25	+|(((
27	27	(% start="6" %)
28	28	1. Number of (different) services offered by the living lab (e.g., stakeholder engagement) covering (all) different phases of the innovation cycle
29	29	)))
30		-|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Culture & Collaboration|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	29	+|(% rowspan="3" %)Culture & Collaboration|(((
31	31	(% start="7" %)
32	32	1. Presence of internal & external business & client relation management process/strategy (including contracts)
33	33	)))
34		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	33	+|(((
35	35	(% start="8" %)
36	36	1. Frequency of internal communication & results sharing to keep partners informed & aligned
37	37	)))
38		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	37	+|(((
39	39	(% start="9" %)
40	40	1. Number of regional, national & international collaborations beyond the scope of an individual living lab project
41	41	)))
42		-|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Human Resources|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	41	+|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|Human Resources|(((
43	43	(% start="10" %)
44	44	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)
45	45	)))
46		-|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Operations|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	45	+|(% rowspan="2" %)Operations|(((
47	47	(% start="11" %)
48	48	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)
49	49	)))
50		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	49	+|(((
51	51	(% start="12" %)
52	52	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)
53	53	)))
54		-|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	53	+|(% rowspan="2" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(((
55	55	(% start="13" %)
56	56	1. % accessibility in time to facilities (e.g., offices, co-creation spaces, testing facilities...)
57	57	)))
58		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	57	+|(((
59	59	(% start="14" %)
60	60	1. % accessibility in time to hard- & software (e.g., co-creation materials, computers, wearables, interaction software, polling/survey software...)
61	61	)))
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" %)(((
	61	+|(% rowspan="4" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Openness**|(% rowspan="2" %)Innovation partnerships, projects & processes|(((
63	63	(% start="15" %)
64	64	1. % of implementation needed processes to safeguard a reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration
65	65	)))
66		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	65	+|(((
67	67	(% start="16" %)
68	68	1. % of implementation of needed processes to safeguard an ethical approach (e.g., regulatory requirements, data protection needed, etc.)
69	69	)))
70		-|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Ownership of results|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	69	+|(% rowspan="2" %)Ownership of results|(((
71	71	(% start="17" %)
72	72	1. % of implementation of needed rules & regulations regarding the use, sharing & licensing of data and IP of collaborative outcomes
73	73	)))
74		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	73	+|(((
75	75	(% start="18" %)
76	76	1. % of implementation of user agreements (data, IPR, rights, liabilities)
77	77	)))
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" %)(((
	77	+|(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Users & reality**|(% rowspan="2" %)User centricity|(((
79	79	(% start="19" %)
80	80	1. % of diversity of stakeholders involved as end-users in living lab projects and/or activities
81	81	)))
82		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	81	+|(((
83	83	(% start="20" %)
84	84	1. Degree of influence end-users exerts on the different phases of the innovation cycle (from informing to empowerment)
85	85	)))
86		-|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	85	+|(% rowspan="2" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(((
87	87	(% start="21" %)
88	88	1. Degree of involvement of end-users in the different phases of the innovation cycle e.g., problem space, solution space, implementation space...)
89	89	)))
90		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	89	+|(((
91	91	(% start="22" %)
92	92	1. Degree of use of real-life contexts of users in the different phases of the innovation cycle
93	93	)))
94		-|(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Tools & methods|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	93	+|(% rowspan="2" %)Tools & methods|(((
95	95	(% start="23" %)
96	96	1. Degree of appropriateness of tools & methods used for the different phases of the innovation cycle
97	97	)))
98		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	97	+|(((
99	99	(% start="24" %)
100	100	1. Frequency of external communication & results sharing to keep end-users and external stakeholders informed and engaged
101	101	)))
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" %)(((
	101	+|(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Impact & value**|(% rowspan="4" %)Co-created values|(((
103	103	(% start="25" %)
104	104	1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders (from the whole value chain) concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle
105	105	)))
106		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	105	+|(((
107	107	(% start="26" %)
108	108	1. Frequency of knowledge sharing (including results) with relevant (internal & external) stakeholders from the value chain
109	109	)))
110		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	109	+|(((
111	111	(% start="27" %)
112	112	1. Number of relevant (open) educational resources (including datasets, trainings) shared/provided for relevant stakeholders
113	113	)))
114		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	113	+|(((
115	115	(% start="28" %)
116	116	1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders concerning knowledge sharing & capacity building (learning materials & infrastructures)
117	117	)))
118		-|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Impacts|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	117	+|Impacts|(((
119	119	(% start="29" %)
120	120	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)
121	121	)))
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" %)(((
	121	+|(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Stability & harmonization**|(% rowspan="3" %)Stability|(((
123	123	(% start="30" %)
124	124	1. % Increase in number of relationships (with a reliable partner network and customers)
125	125	)))
126		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	125	+|(((
127	127	(% start="31" %)
128	128	1. Level of financial sustainability based on a balanced & diversified set of fundings (structural vs. project-based) & revenue streams
129	129	)))
130		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	129	+|(((
131	131	(% start="32" %)
132	132	1. Number of living lab value propositions, flexible to adapt to new circumstances
133	133	)))
134		-|(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	133	+|(% rowspan="3" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(((
135	135	(% start="33" %)
136	136	1. % Increase in number of partners committed to scale up products/solutions/services developed by the living lab
137	137	)))
138		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	137	+|(((
139	139	(% start="34" %)
140	140	1. Number of products/solutions/services (able to be) scaled-up
141	141	)))
142		-|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
	141	+|(((
143	143	(% start="35" %)
144	144	1. Number of participation in (cross-border/cross-sectoral) initiatives/projects based on harmonized living lab infrastructures, standards, skills, methods, tools processes or services
145	145	)))