Last modified by Sarantis Dimitriadis on 2023/11/23 19:47

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