Adventure Cards, Process Wheels, and a Vision …
419
Earlier research developed frameworks to assess the performance of living labs
and explored evaluative tools such as the Harmonization Cube, which attempted to
align methods and tools used in the European Network of Living Labs and assess
interoperability for organizational, technical, and contextual issues (Mulder et al.
2007). Others, such as Ayvari and Jyrama (2017), have conducted research on management tools for living labs, discussed the use of tools for different phases of living
labs (Ståhlbröst and Holst 2013), and have noted a need to investigate tools in living labs, as this topic is under-researched (Bergvall-Kareborn and Ståhlbröst 2009;
Ståhlbröst 2008).
This study seeks to contribute to this body of scholarship by examining innovation
tools designed to develop team-building skills (the Process Wheels), document the
stories of living lab research (Learning Adventure Cards), and share a vision for
building a digital storytelling machine (Living Lab Web App).
3 Methods and Questions
I conducted a comprehensive listening tour of academic and operational units, speaking with directors, administrators, faculty, senior leaders, external partners, staff, and
students affiliated with MIT to gain an understanding of ideas, aspirations, successes,
and obstacles and to examine the landscape surrounding campus-based research.
This tour was divided into three phases; targeting academic units first and then
operational departments and student groups. I compiled findings from 33 in-person
interviews and collected structured and unstructured data from 62 identified projects
that utilized the campus as a test bed for sustainability-related research during the
past 12 years. In summary, three key findings emerged: confusion about the term
“living lab” (mentioned by 59%), interest in learning how better to communicate
research findings (mentioned by 52%), and the need to connect with the right people
and processes (mentioned by 38%). With these themes as guideposts, I worked extensively with internal stakeholders—including faculty, staff, students, administrators,
and external partners—during the following months in an effort to develop working
definitions for the term “living lab,” to gain an understanding of how they work, and
to encourage an emergent community of practice.
The process of maintaining and cultivating new work generated new questions.
For example, How can the complex process of living lab research, which often
involves multiple stakeholders and divergent timelines and objectives, be managed?
How can progress be measured through time? When pondering the answers, it was
soon discovered that the typical living lab contained many moving parts and opposing
timelines. For instance, researchers followed a sequence driven by academic interests
and/or funding sources, while operational experts followed production deadlines,
fiscal budgets, and/or specific directions from senior leadership. The creation of
a new character in this drama (i.e., the Living Lab Design Manager) added new
intentions to bridge between operational and academic units, to nurture informal
and formal learning activities, to cultivate funding opportunities, and to document
419
Earlier research developed frameworks to assess the performance of living labs
and explored evaluative tools such as the Harmonization Cube, which attempted to
align methods and tools used in the European Network of Living Labs and assess
interoperability for organizational, technical, and contextual issues (Mulder et al.
2007). Others, such as Ayvari and Jyrama (2017), have conducted research on management tools for living labs, discussed the use of tools for different phases of living
labs (Ståhlbröst and Holst 2013), and have noted a need to investigate tools in living labs, as this topic is under-researched (Bergvall-Kareborn and Ståhlbröst 2009;
Ståhlbröst 2008).
This study seeks to contribute to this body of scholarship by examining innovation
tools designed to develop team-building skills (the Process Wheels), document the
stories of living lab research (Learning Adventure Cards), and share a vision for
building a digital storytelling machine (Living Lab Web App).
3 Methods and Questions
I conducted a comprehensive listening tour of academic and operational units, speaking with directors, administrators, faculty, senior leaders, external partners, staff, and
students affiliated with MIT to gain an understanding of ideas, aspirations, successes,
and obstacles and to examine the landscape surrounding campus-based research.
This tour was divided into three phases; targeting academic units first and then
operational departments and student groups. I compiled findings from 33 in-person
interviews and collected structured and unstructured data from 62 identified projects
that utilized the campus as a test bed for sustainability-related research during the
past 12 years. In summary, three key findings emerged: confusion about the term
“living lab” (mentioned by 59%), interest in learning how better to communicate
research findings (mentioned by 52%), and the need to connect with the right people
and processes (mentioned by 38%). With these themes as guideposts, I worked extensively with internal stakeholders—including faculty, staff, students, administrators,
and external partners—during the following months in an effort to develop working
definitions for the term “living lab,” to gain an understanding of how they work, and
to encourage an emergent community of practice.
The process of maintaining and cultivating new work generated new questions.
For example, How can the complex process of living lab research, which often
involves multiple stakeholders and divergent timelines and objectives, be managed?
How can progress be measured through time? When pondering the answers, it was
soon discovered that the typical living lab contained many moving parts and opposing
timelines. For instance, researchers followed a sequence driven by academic interests
and/or funding sources, while operational experts followed production deadlines,
fiscal budgets, and/or specific directions from senior leadership. The creation of
a new character in this drama (i.e., the Living Lab Design Manager) added new
intentions to bridge between operational and academic units, to nurture informal
and formal learning activities, to cultivate funding opportunities, and to document