146
L. A. Verhoef et al.
The fourth use of the framework above (engagement and communication with
stakeholders) demonstrates how a more process-oriented approach can help in the
implementation of a Living lab and in overcoming common barriers. The steps in
starting that process are (1) recognising the envisioned (global) impact, (2) attaining
common understanding of and respect for the various outcomes, (3) designing the
work space with all stakeholders needs in mind (time, location, and resources). The
elements for running an effective Living Lab require a holistic approach and effective
connection and communication with all relevant users, researchers, educators and
operations staff.
To ensure the fifth ‘use’ of this framework (peer-peer learning) requires the framework to include a feedback and fast (practical) learning system, preferably within
existing practitioner networks within HEIs such as the ISCN. The system should
facilitate open and non-anonymous peer reviewing. It is envisaged that the framework becomes a peer-reviewed system whereby case studies are entered and peer
reviewed, and enter into an open access database.
5 Conclusion and Next Steps
This paper describes a living, shared framework and methodology, the ‘Campus
as Living Lab’ learning system, created through global participatory workshops
and Living Lab literature, aimed at supporting universities and their Sustainability
(Coordinating) Offices in the development and monitoring of Living Lab projects.
The framework includes seven categories of supportive data collection, three levels
of detail to meet different requirements of potential users, and three stages of use.
The Living Lab framework presented in this chapter, aims to create value and help
universities maximise the benefit of Living Lab projects within an institution, support
monitoring, reflection and learning from projects, and facilitate communication with
stakeholders, and the sharing of practices and learning between peers across the
globe. As a living shared, framework and learning system, the framework will adapt
and develop over time and within different contexts. To provide feedback and fast
(practical) learning from users, the system will be further developed to facilitate
transparent peer reviewing.
Development of this framework has raised a number of questions with scope for
further in-depth and detailed investigations in relation to the design and operation of
Living Labs. These key areas of questions may be categorized as follows:
– campus data acquisition; tracking and analysis and managing risk;
– educational and research outcomes;
– solution design, applicability, scalability and culture.
Within the area of campus data acquisition questions arise around how data is
collected and managed—how do we handle the real and perceived risks that come
with greater transparency? How do we handle privacy issues that may exist in the
accessibility of data sets? Can increasing data access, enhance transparency, and
L. A. Verhoef et al.
The fourth use of the framework above (engagement and communication with
stakeholders) demonstrates how a more process-oriented approach can help in the
implementation of a Living lab and in overcoming common barriers. The steps in
starting that process are (1) recognising the envisioned (global) impact, (2) attaining
common understanding of and respect for the various outcomes, (3) designing the
work space with all stakeholders needs in mind (time, location, and resources). The
elements for running an effective Living Lab require a holistic approach and effective
connection and communication with all relevant users, researchers, educators and
operations staff.
To ensure the fifth ‘use’ of this framework (peer-peer learning) requires the framework to include a feedback and fast (practical) learning system, preferably within
existing practitioner networks within HEIs such as the ISCN. The system should
facilitate open and non-anonymous peer reviewing. It is envisaged that the framework becomes a peer-reviewed system whereby case studies are entered and peer
reviewed, and enter into an open access database.
5 Conclusion and Next Steps
This paper describes a living, shared framework and methodology, the ‘Campus
as Living Lab’ learning system, created through global participatory workshops
and Living Lab literature, aimed at supporting universities and their Sustainability
(Coordinating) Offices in the development and monitoring of Living Lab projects.
The framework includes seven categories of supportive data collection, three levels
of detail to meet different requirements of potential users, and three stages of use.
The Living Lab framework presented in this chapter, aims to create value and help
universities maximise the benefit of Living Lab projects within an institution, support
monitoring, reflection and learning from projects, and facilitate communication with
stakeholders, and the sharing of practices and learning between peers across the
globe. As a living shared, framework and learning system, the framework will adapt
and develop over time and within different contexts. To provide feedback and fast
(practical) learning from users, the system will be further developed to facilitate
transparent peer reviewing.
Development of this framework has raised a number of questions with scope for
further in-depth and detailed investigations in relation to the design and operation of
Living Labs. These key areas of questions may be categorized as follows:
– campus data acquisition; tracking and analysis and managing risk;
– educational and research outcomes;
– solution design, applicability, scalability and culture.
Within the area of campus data acquisition questions arise around how data is
collected and managed—how do we handle the real and perceived risks that come
with greater transparency? How do we handle privacy issues that may exist in the
accessibility of data sets? Can increasing data access, enhance transparency, and