140
L. A. Verhoef et al.
the creation of this framework were the feed forward and feedback processes within
the international HEI community.
The need for a framework such as the one presented was established in 2016,
through the ISCN, the International Sustainable Campus Network—a global network
aimed at supporting leading colleges, universities, and corporate campuses in the
exchange of information, ideas, and best practices for achieving sustainable campus
operations and integrating sustainability in research and teaching. For many years the
ISCN has hosted a working group on ‘Integrating Research, Teaching and Facilities’,
and in 2016 the group determined that a more methodological approach could be
valuable to maximise the potential of this integrative approach. The co-authors from
MIT, TUD, Keele, Hokkaido and ETH Zurich, entered into a process to develop a
potential new framing for discussion in the ISCN Vancouver conference in 2017.
From the onset, it was decided not to make a framework and then to present it as
a fixed ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ product, but rather to share the initial discussions for a
framework and enter into a co-creation process, bringing in feedback and involvement of the ISCN participants. This approach was valued by the 30+ participants,
who agreed on the desirability of a framework and methodology, which integrated
stakeholder involvement, provided support for the management of Living Labs, and
enabled the connecting and sharing between peers. Based on these inputs, it was
decided to move on, and attempt to build a more descriptive framework, with the
help of more HEIs.
An initial framework was built using initial thinking (Verhoef et al. 2017) and the
Vancouver working group report (Vancouver 2017), taking the strengths from the
various other Living Labs Methodologies, for example, AMS Institute (Steen et al.
2017), ENoLL (Malmberg and Vaittinen 2017; Bodi et al. 2015), Keyson (2017),
Social Labs (Hassan 2014), and Rathenau Institute (Maas 2017). From these, the
requirements for seven categories of data collection were extracted, referred to as:
General, Scope, Participants and Co-creators, Organisations, Outcomes, Impact, and
Reflection and Review. These are currently in the process of being further defined
and parameterized. The Market Impact Assessment Methodology developed by NewEnergy-Works for the European Commission was used to subdivide the impact category (Verhoef et al. 2004).
3 Description of the Framework
3.1 The Seven Data Collection Categories
The proposed framework is meant to lead to the development of a database to collect
key data about a Living Lab. It is designed to be a supportive instrument over the
whole lifetime of a Living Lab—from initial planning stages, through monitoring
phases, through to its final closure and reflection on the lessons learned. The seven
categories for data collection cover all of the different stages of the Living Lab,
L. A. Verhoef et al.
the creation of this framework were the feed forward and feedback processes within
the international HEI community.
The need for a framework such as the one presented was established in 2016,
through the ISCN, the International Sustainable Campus Network—a global network
aimed at supporting leading colleges, universities, and corporate campuses in the
exchange of information, ideas, and best practices for achieving sustainable campus
operations and integrating sustainability in research and teaching. For many years the
ISCN has hosted a working group on ‘Integrating Research, Teaching and Facilities’,
and in 2016 the group determined that a more methodological approach could be
valuable to maximise the potential of this integrative approach. The co-authors from
MIT, TUD, Keele, Hokkaido and ETH Zurich, entered into a process to develop a
potential new framing for discussion in the ISCN Vancouver conference in 2017.
From the onset, it was decided not to make a framework and then to present it as
a fixed ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ product, but rather to share the initial discussions for a
framework and enter into a co-creation process, bringing in feedback and involvement of the ISCN participants. This approach was valued by the 30+ participants,
who agreed on the desirability of a framework and methodology, which integrated
stakeholder involvement, provided support for the management of Living Labs, and
enabled the connecting and sharing between peers. Based on these inputs, it was
decided to move on, and attempt to build a more descriptive framework, with the
help of more HEIs.
An initial framework was built using initial thinking (Verhoef et al. 2017) and the
Vancouver working group report (Vancouver 2017), taking the strengths from the
various other Living Labs Methodologies, for example, AMS Institute (Steen et al.
2017), ENoLL (Malmberg and Vaittinen 2017; Bodi et al. 2015), Keyson (2017),
Social Labs (Hassan 2014), and Rathenau Institute (Maas 2017). From these, the
requirements for seven categories of data collection were extracted, referred to as:
General, Scope, Participants and Co-creators, Organisations, Outcomes, Impact, and
Reflection and Review. These are currently in the process of being further defined
and parameterized. The Market Impact Assessment Methodology developed by NewEnergy-Works for the European Commission was used to subdivide the impact category (Verhoef et al. 2004).
3 Description of the Framework
3.1 The Seven Data Collection Categories
The proposed framework is meant to lead to the development of a database to collect
key data about a Living Lab. It is designed to be a supportive instrument over the
whole lifetime of a Living Lab—from initial planning stages, through monitoring
phases, through to its final closure and reflection on the lessons learned. The seven
categories for data collection cover all of the different stages of the Living Lab,