Wiki source code of Living Lab Key Performance Indicators
Version 1.2 by Sarantis Dimitriadis on 2023/11/23 18:39
Hide last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
1.1 | 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 | |||
| |
1.2 | 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|((( | ||
| |
1.1 | 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 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 10 | (% start="2" %) |
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) | ||
| 13 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 14 | (% start="3" %) |
| |
1.1 | 15 | 1. Presence of partner agreements/arrangements for co-innovation |
| 16 | ))) | ||
| 17 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 18 | (% start="4" %) |
| |
1.1 | 19 | 1. Completeness of a strategic roadmap for the living lab (SMART goals, responsibilities, and decision-making processes) |
| 20 | ))) | ||
| 21 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Business Model|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 22 | (% start="5" %) |
| |
1.1 | 23 | 1. Completeness of the described business model approach (value propositions, problems & solutions, activities & resources, key stakeholders, customers, users, costs & revenues, metrics & impacts) |
| 24 | ))) | ||
| 25 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 26 | (% start="6" %) |
| |
1.1 | 27 | 1. Number of (different) services offered by the living lab (e.g., stakeholder engagement) covering (all) different phases of the innovation cycle |
| 28 | ))) | ||
| 29 | |(% rowspan="3" %)Culture & Collaboration|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 30 | (% start="7" %) |
| |
1.1 | 31 | 1. Presence of internal & external business & client relation management process/strategy (including contracts) |
| 32 | ))) | ||
| 33 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 34 | (% start="8" %) |
| |
1.1 | 35 | 1. Frequency of internal communication & results sharing to keep partners informed & aligned |
| 36 | ))) | ||
| 37 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 38 | (% start="9" %) |
| |
1.1 | 39 | 1. Number of regional, national & international collaborations beyond the scope of an individual living lab project |
| 40 | ))) | ||
| |
1.2 | 41 | |(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|Human Resources|((( |
| 42 | (% start="10" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) | ||
| 45 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Operations|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 46 | (% start="11" %) |
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) | ||
| 49 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 50 | (% start="12" %) |
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) | ||
| 53 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Equipment & infrastructure|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 54 | (% start="13" %) |
| |
1.1 | 55 | 1. % accessibility in time to facilities (e.g., offices, co-creation spaces, testing facilities...) |
| 56 | ))) | ||
| 57 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 58 | (% start="14" %) |
| |
1.1 | 59 | 1. % accessibility in time to hard- & software (e.g., co-creation materials, computers, wearables, interaction software, polling/survey software...) |
| 60 | ))) | ||
| |
1.2 | 61 | |(% rowspan="4" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Openness**|(% rowspan="2" %)Innovation partnerships, projects & processes|((( |
| 62 | (% start="15" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 63 | 1. % of implementation needed processes to safeguard a reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration |
| 64 | ))) | ||
| 65 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 66 | (% start="16" %) |
| |
1.1 | 67 | 1. % of implementation of needed processes to safeguard an ethical approach (e.g., regulatory requirements, data protection needed, etc.) |
| 68 | ))) | ||
| 69 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Ownership of results|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 70 | (% start="17" %) |
| |
1.1 | 71 | 1. % of implementation of needed rules & regulations regarding the use, sharing & licensing of data and IP of collaborative outcomes |
| 72 | ))) | ||
| 73 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 74 | (% start="18" %) |
| |
1.1 | 75 | 1. % of implementation of user agreements (data, IPR, rights, liabilities) |
| 76 | ))) | ||
| |
1.2 | 77 | |(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Users & reality**|(% rowspan="2" %)User centricity|((( |
| 78 | (% start="19" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 79 | 1. % of diversity of stakeholders involved as end-users in living lab projects and/or activities |
| 80 | ))) | ||
| 81 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 82 | (% start="20" %) |
| |
1.1 | 83 | 1. Degree of influence end-users exerts on the different phases of the innovation cycle (from informing to empowerment) |
| 84 | ))) | ||
| 85 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Lifecycle & real-life|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 86 | (% start="21" %) |
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) | ||
| 89 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 90 | (% start="22" %) |
| |
1.1 | 91 | 1. Degree of use of real-life contexts of users in the different phases of the innovation cycle |
| 92 | ))) | ||
| 93 | |(% rowspan="2" %)Tools & methods|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 94 | (% start="23" %) |
| |
1.1 | 95 | 1. Degree of appropriateness of tools & methods used for the different phases of the innovation cycle |
| 96 | ))) | ||
| 97 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 98 | (% start="24" %) |
| |
1.1 | 99 | 1. Frequency of external communication & results sharing to keep end-users and external stakeholders informed and engaged |
| 100 | ))) | ||
| |
1.2 | 101 | |(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Impact & value**|(% rowspan="4" %)Co-created values|((( |
| 102 | (% start="25" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 103 | 1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders (from the whole value chain) concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle |
| 104 | ))) | ||
| 105 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 106 | (% start="26" %) |
| |
1.1 | 107 | 1. Frequency of knowledge sharing (including results) with relevant (internal & external) stakeholders from the value chain |
| 108 | ))) | ||
| 109 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 110 | (% start="27" %) |
| |
1.1 | 111 | 1. Number of relevant (open) educational resources (including datasets, trainings) shared/provided for relevant stakeholders |
| 112 | ))) | ||
| 113 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 114 | (% start="28" %) |
| |
1.1 | 115 | 1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders concerning knowledge sharing & capacity building (learning materials & infrastructures) |
| 116 | ))) | ||
| 117 | |Impacts|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 118 | (% start="29" %) |
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) | ||
| |
1.2 | 121 | |(% rowspan="6" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Stability & harmonization**|(% rowspan="3" %)Stability|((( |
| 122 | (% start="30" %) | ||
| |
1.1 | 123 | 1. % Increase in number of relationships (with a reliable partner network and customers) |
| 124 | ))) | ||
| 125 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 126 | (% start="31" %) |
| |
1.1 | 127 | 1. Level of financial sustainability based on a balanced & diversified set of fundings (structural vs. project-based) & revenue streams |
| 128 | ))) | ||
| 129 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 130 | (% start="32" %) |
| |
1.1 | 131 | 1. Number of living lab value propositions, flexible to adapt to new circumstances |
| 132 | ))) | ||
| 133 | |(% rowspan="3" %)Harmonization & scale-up|((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 134 | (% start="33" %) |
| |
1.1 | 135 | 1. % Increase in number of partners committed to scale up products/solutions/services developed by the living lab |
| 136 | ))) | ||
| 137 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 138 | (% start="34" %) |
| |
1.1 | 139 | 1. Number of products/solutions/services (able to be) scaled-up |
| 140 | ))) | ||
| 141 | |((( | ||
| |
1.2 | 142 | (% start="35" %) |
| |
1.1 | 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 | ))) |