Last modified by Sarantis Dimitriadis on 2023/11/23 19:47
Hide last authors
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 1 Here we present the current version of the Living Lab Key Performance Indicators, derived by the activities.
2
3
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.5 4 Living Lab Key Performance Indicators:
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.4 5
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 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
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 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" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 10 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 11 (% start="2" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 14 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 15 (% start="3" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 16 1. Presence of partner agreements/arrangements for co-innovation
17 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 18 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 19 (% start="4" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 20 1. Completeness of a strategic roadmap for the living lab (SMART goals, responsibilities, and decision-making processes)
21 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 22 |(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Business Model|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 23 (% start="5" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 24 1. Completeness of the described business model approach (value propositions, problems & solutions, activities & resources, key stakeholders, customers, users, costs & revenues, metrics & impacts)
25 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 26 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 27 (% start="6" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 28 1. Number of (different) services offered by the living lab (e.g., stakeholder engagement) covering (all) different phases of the innovation cycle
29 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 30 |(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Culture & Collaboration|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 31 (% start="7" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 32 1. Presence of internal & external business & client relation management process/strategy (including contracts)
33 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 34 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 35 (% start="8" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 36 1. Frequency of internal communication & results sharing to keep partners informed & aligned
37 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 38 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 39 (% start="9" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 40 1. Number of regional, national & international collaborations beyond the scope of an individual living lab project
41 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 42 |(% rowspan="5" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)**Operations**|(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Human Resources|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 43 (% start="10" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 46 |(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Operations|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 47 (% start="11" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 50 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 51 (% start="12" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 54 |(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Equipment & infrastructure|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 55 (% start="13" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 56 1. % accessibility in time to facilities (e.g., offices, co-creation spaces, testing facilities...)
57 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 58 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 59 (% start="14" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 60 1. % accessibility in time to hard- & software (e.g., co-creation materials, computers, wearables, interaction software, polling/survey software...)
61 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 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" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 63 (% start="15" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 64 1. % of implementation needed processes to safeguard a reflective and iterative approach to transdisciplinary collaboration
65 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 66 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 67 (% start="16" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 68 1. % of implementation of needed processes to safeguard an ethical approach (e.g., regulatory requirements, data protection needed, etc.)
69 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 70 |(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Ownership of results|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 71 (% start="17" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 72 1. % of implementation of needed rules & regulations regarding the use, sharing & licensing of data and IP of collaborative outcomes
73 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 74 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 75 (% start="18" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 76 1. % of implementation of user agreements (data, IPR, rights, liabilities)
77 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 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" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 79 (% start="19" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 80 1. % of diversity of stakeholders involved as end-users in living lab projects and/or activities
81 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 82 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 83 (% start="20" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 84 1. Degree of influence end-users exerts on the different phases of the innovation cycle (from informing to empowerment)
85 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 86 |(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Lifecycle & real-life|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 87 (% start="21" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 90 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 91 (% start="22" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 92 1. Degree of use of real-life contexts of users in the different phases of the innovation cycle
93 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 94 |(% rowspan="2" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Tools & methods|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 95 (% start="23" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 96 1. Degree of appropriateness of tools & methods used for the different phases of the innovation cycle
97 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 98 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 99 (% start="24" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 100 1. Frequency of external communication & results sharing to keep end-users and external stakeholders informed and engaged
101 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 102 |(% 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" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 103 (% start="25" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 104 1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders (from the whole value chain) concerning their involvement/influence on the innovation cycle
105 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 106 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 107 (% start="26" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 108 1. Frequency of knowledge sharing (including results) with relevant (internal & external) stakeholders from the value chain
109 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 110 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 111 (% start="27" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 112 1. Number of relevant (open) educational resources (including datasets, trainings) shared/provided for relevant stakeholders
113 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 114 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 115 (% start="28" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 116 1. % Satisfaction of users/stakeholders concerning knowledge sharing & capacity building (learning materials & infrastructures)
117 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 118 |(% style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Impacts|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 119 (% start="29" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 120 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 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 122 |(% 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" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 123 (% start="30" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 124 1. % Increase in number of relationships (with a reliable partner network and customers)
125 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 126 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 127 (% start="31" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 128 1. Level of financial sustainability based on a balanced & diversified set of fundings (structural vs. project-based) & revenue streams
129 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 130 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 131 (% start="32" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 132 1. Number of living lab value propositions, flexible to adapt to new circumstances
133 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 134 |(% rowspan="3" style="text-align:center; vertical-align:middle" %)Harmonization & scale-up|(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 135 (% start="33" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 136 1. % Increase in number of partners committed to scale up products/solutions/services developed by the living lab
137 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 138 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 139 (% start="34" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 140 1. Number of products/solutions/services (able to be) scaled-up
141 )))
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.3 142 |(% style="vertical-align:middle" %)(((
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.2 143 (% start="35" %)
Sarantis Dimitriadis 1.1 144 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 )))

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101007990

Copyright © 2021 VITALISE Project