Wiki source code of Living Lab Key Performance Indicators
Version 1.1 by Sarantis Dimitriadis on 2023/11/23 18:26
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Here we present the current version of the Living Lab Key Performance Indicators, derived by the activities. | ||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | Table 8 Living Lab Key Performance Indicators | ||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |Chapter|Criterion|KPI | ||
| 6 | |(% rowspan="9" %)**Strategy**|(% rowspan="4" %)Governance|((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 9 | |((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 12 | |((( | ||
| 13 | 1. Presence of partner agreements/arrangements for co-innovation | ||
| 14 | ))) | ||
| 15 | |((( | ||
| 16 | 1. Completeness of a strategic roadmap for the living lab (SMART goals, responsibilities, and decision-making processes) | ||
| 17 | ))) | ||
| 18 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Business Model|((( | ||
| 19 | 1. Completeness of the described business model approach (value propositions, problems & solutions, activities & resources, key stakeholders, customers, users, costs & revenues, metrics & impacts) | ||
| 20 | ))) | ||
| 21 | |((( | ||
| 22 | 1. Number of (different) services offered by the living lab (e.g., stakeholder engagement) covering (all) different phases of the innovation cycle | ||
| 23 | ))) | ||
| 24 | |(% rowspan="3" %)Culture & Collaboration|((( | ||
| 25 | 1. Presence of internal & external business & client relation management process/strategy (including contracts) | ||
| 26 | ))) | ||
| 27 | |((( | ||
| 28 | 1. Frequency of internal communication & results sharing to keep partners informed & aligned | ||
| 29 | ))) | ||
| 30 | |((( | ||
| 31 | 1. Number of regional, national & international collaborations beyond the scope of an individual living lab project | ||
| 32 | ))) | ||
| 33 | |(% rowspan="5" %)**Operations**|Human Resources|((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 36 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Operations|((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 39 | |((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 42 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Equipment & infrastructure|((( | ||
| 43 | 1. % accessibility in time to facilities (e.g., offices, co-creation spaces, testing facilities...) | ||
| 44 | ))) | ||
| 45 | |((( | ||
| 46 | 1. % accessibility in time to hard- & software (e.g., co-creation materials, computers, wearables, interaction software, polling/survey software...) | ||
| 47 | ))) | ||
| 48 | |(% rowspan="4" %)**Openness**|(% rowspan="2" %)Innovation partnerships, projects & processes|((( | ||
| 49 | 1. % of implementation needed processes to safeguard a reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration | ||
| 50 | ))) | ||
| 51 | |((( | ||
| 52 | 1. % of implementation of needed processes to safeguard an ethical approach (e.g., regulatory requirements, data protection needed, etc.) | ||
| 53 | ))) | ||
| 54 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Ownership of results|((( | ||
| 55 | 1. % of implementation of needed rules & regulations regarding the use, sharing & licensing of data and IP of collaborative outcomes | ||
| 56 | ))) | ||
| 57 | |((( | ||
| 58 | 1. % of implementation of user agreements (data, IPR, rights, liabilities) | ||
| 59 | ))) | ||
| 60 | |(% rowspan="6" %)**Users & reality**|(% rowspan="2" %)User centricity|((( | ||
| 61 | 1. % of diversity of stakeholders involved as end-users in living lab projects and/or activities | ||
| 62 | ))) | ||
| 63 | |((( | ||
| 64 | 1. Degree of influence end-users exerts on the different phases of the innovation cycle (from informing to empowerment) | ||
| 65 | ))) | ||
| 66 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Lifecycle & real-life|((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 69 | |((( | ||
| 70 | 1. Degree of use of real-life contexts of users in the different phases of the innovation cycle | ||
| 71 | ))) | ||
| 72 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Tools & methods|((( | ||
| 73 | 1. Degree of appropriateness of tools & methods used for the different phases of the innovation cycle | ||
| 74 | ))) | ||
| 75 | |((( | ||
| 76 | 1. Frequency of external communication & results sharing to keep end-users and external stakeholders informed and engaged | ||
| 77 | ))) | ||
| 78 | |(% rowspan="5" %)**Impact & value**|(% rowspan="4" %)Co-created values|((( | ||
| 79 | 1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders (from the whole value chain) concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle | ||
| 80 | ))) | ||
| 81 | |((( | ||
| 82 | 1. Frequency of knowledge sharing (including results) with relevant (internal & external) stakeholders from the value chain | ||
| 83 | ))) | ||
| 84 | |((( | ||
| 85 | 1. Number of relevant (open) educational resources (including datasets, trainings) shared/provided for relevant stakeholders | ||
| 86 | ))) | ||
| 87 | |((( | ||
| 88 | 1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders concerning knowledge sharing & capacity building (learning materials & infrastructures) | ||
| 89 | ))) | ||
| 90 | |Impacts|((( | ||
| 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 | ))) | ||
| 93 | |(% rowspan="6" %)**Stability & harmonization**|(% rowspan="3" %)Stability|((( | ||
| 94 | 1. % Increase in number of relationships (with a reliable partner network and customers) | ||
| 95 | ))) | ||
| 96 | |((( | ||
| 97 | 1. Level of financial sustainability based on a balanced & diversified set of fundings (structural vs. project-based) & revenue streams | ||
| 98 | ))) | ||
| 99 | |((( | ||
| 100 | 1. Number of living lab value propositions, flexible to adapt to new circumstances | ||
| 101 | ))) | ||
| 102 | |(% rowspan="3" %)Harmonization & scale-up|((( | ||
| 103 | 1. % Increase in number of partners committed to scale up products/solutions/services developed by the living lab | ||
| 104 | ))) | ||
| 105 | |((( | ||
| 106 | 1. Number of products/solutions/services (able to be) scaled-up | ||
| 107 | ))) | ||
| 108 | |((( | ||
| 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 | ))) |