Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LivingLabsMethodologyBook Web
LivingLabsMethodologyBook Web
Methodology Handbook
This book is based on results from
the collaboration within the project
SmartIES and the process of using and
evaluating the FormIT methodology in
a Nordic cross-border pilot.
Botnia Living Lab is hosted and managed by CDT at LTU. Our 6000
end-users are found across Sweden and they are engaged in various
ways in the total process from need-finding and idea-generation,
through concept-development and prototype/usability testing to
service piloting. Since the start of our user panel in 2002 this has
been one of our most important boosters in the creation of novel and
valuable IT-services and products in several different domains: Energy
and Environment, Smart Cities, Security, Mobile services etc.
Production: Plan Sju kommunikation AB · Illustration/Key Principles: Lindgren+Flodin · Printing: LuleGrafiska 2012
Phone: +46 920 49 10 00
Web: www.ltu.se/cdt
Thanks to the SMEs who worked with us in the cross-border pilots and told
their stories:
Lars Kulseng (Wireless Trondheim LtD, Norway)
Finnur Friðrik Einarsson (ICEconsult ltd, Iceland)
Financed by: Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation, Lietuvos Mokslo
Taryba, The Research Council of Norway, Norden NordForsk, Rannís and Vinnova.
Most innovations come from gaps between an existing product and custo-
mers’ expectations. The technological factor is only one element of the
innovation. Other elements can be better working conditions or methods of
service delivery that may, or may not, have a technological component.
Labs
Living Lab is a concept to support the processes of user-driven ICT sys-
tems. One precondition in Living Lab activities is that they are situated in
real-world contexts, not constructed laboratory settings.
Living Lab is an answer to many contemporary trends such as, for instance:
• users changed roles from passive consumers to active prosumers of content,
• shortened time to market for innovators,
• a globalized market through internet and IT’s entrance into peoples every-
day activities.
5 A Living Lab has the endeavour to support the innovation process for all in-
volved stakeholders, from manufacturers to end-users with special attention
to SMEs, with the potential users in the centre in their real world context.
To date there exists no agreed upon definition of the concept. It has been
defined as a methodology, an organization, a system, an arena, an environ-
ment, and/or a systemic innovation approach. Based on our interpretation
of the concept as well as our experiences of Living Lab practices, we
define Living Labs as both an environment (milieu, arena) and an approach
(methodology, innovation approach).
Living Lab as an Environment
Many different types of Living Lab environments exists such as:
1 Research Living Labs focusing on performing research on different
aspects of the innovation process.
2 Corporate Living Labs that focus on having a physical place where
they invite stakeholders (e.g. citizens) to co-create innovations.
3 Organizational Living Lab where the members of an organization
co-creatively develop innovations.
4 Intermediary Living Labs in which different partners are invited to
collaboratively innovate in a neutral arena.
5 A time limited Living Lab as a support for the innovation process in
a project. The Living Lab closes when the project ends.
Due to the constant development of the concept other types of Living Labs
6
certainly exists.
• ICT & Infrastructure outlines the role that ICT technology can play to
facilitate new ways of cooperating and co-creating new innovations
among stakeholders.
• Management represent the ownership, organization, and policy aspects, a
Living Lab can be managed by e.g. consultants, companies or researchers.
• Partners & Users bring their own specific wealth of knowledge and
expertise to the collective,
ICT
helping to achieve boundary &I
NF
H
spanning knowledge transfer. O A C RA
ST
R R
• Research symbolizes the col- AP
P
U
lective learning and reflection
C
TU
7 that take place in the Living
RE
Lab. Technological research
partners can also provide
N O VATI ON
direct access to research that IN
ENT
methods and techniques for
RESE
GEM
Living Lab practices which
AR
NA
CH
MA
operations.
PA R S
TN ERS & USER
Hence, a Living Lab environment should have a good relation with, and
access to, users willing to be involved in innovation processes. Any Living
Lab should also have access to multi-contextual environments, as well as
high-end technology and infrastructure that can support both the proces-
ses of user involvement and technology development and tests. Each Living
Lab environment also needs organisation and methodologies suitable for
its specific circumstances. Finally, a Living Lab needs access to a diversity
of expertise in terms of different partners that can contribute to the current
activities. Equally important are the Key Principles of the approaches applied
in Living Lab activities.
8
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
9
Living Lab Key Principles
In Living Lab activities there are five Key Principles that
should permeate all operations:
Value
Influence
Sustainability
Openness
Realism 10
Benefits
-Sacrifices
Key Principle: Influence
Users can also be involved and have influence on innovation processes for
democracy reasons, learning reasons or economical reasons. Adding to that
is the emerging trend of customers and users who want the opportunity to
influence products and services. For instance, Nike involves customers in
developing and designing shoes. The trend of letting customers and users
influence companies’ services can be expected to grow.
Based on the reason for participation, the value to be achieved from partici-
pation is obviously varying. It is prudent to define and explain the concept as
clearly as possible when applying a Living Lab approach.
Why is sustainability
important and what does
it stand for?
Creating a sustainable envi-
ronment includes economical,
ecological and social aspects,
15 which makes it a complex
and multifaceted task.
There is a need to develop methods that help labs to take care of the lear-
ning generated and to transform this learning into scientifically sound models
and methods. Different Living Labs have different constellations, often with a
weight on either public or private organizations. It is important to learn more
about how this affects the development and viability of a Living Lab.
It is important that Living Labs take responsibility for their ecological, social,
and economic effects. The innovation processes supported by a Living Lab
must address sustainability issues, for instance,
by choosing the right materials, implementing
environmentally-friendly processes, and consi-
dering the social and economical impact that the
innovation might have once implemented.
Meet the needs
of both present
and future
Key Principle: Openness
Bidirectional
flows of
knowledge
Key Principle: Realism
METHODOLOGY
Theory and guidelines
FormIT is a methodology that is developed to suit and support Living Lab
activities. Three theoretical streams inspire it: Soft Systems Thinking,
Appreciative Inquiry, and NeedFinding.
FormIT strongly stresses the importance of the first phase in the concept
design cycle, usually referred to as analyses or requirements engineering.
Since this phase creates the foundation for the rest of the process, errors
here becomes very hard and expensive to correct in later stages. This also
is the phase in which users can make the strongest contributions by actually
setting the direction for the design.
23 Since users’ needs and requirements can change as users gain more know-
ledge and insights into possible solutions, it is important to re-examine their
needs continually and make sure they correlate to given requirements.
INNOVATION DESIGN
Appreciate Opportunities
Design Innovation(s)
Evaluate
User Experience
The FormIT process can be seen as a
spiral in which the focus and shape of 24
PROTOTYPE DESIGN the design becomes clearer, while the
Appreciate Opportunities
Design Prototype(s) attention of the evaluation broadens
from a focus on concepts and usability
aspects to a holistic view on the use of
the system.
Evaluate
Usability
Use
Technology
PLANNING
In each cycle there are three phases:
• Appreciate Opportunities
• Design
• Evaluate
Before and after these three cycles, two additional cycles are included in the
25 process. The first is planning, seen in the lower part of the figure, and the
second is commercialisation, which is visible in the upper part of the figure.
Technology
27
Cycle 1. COMMERCIALISATION
Concept Design
The first cycle of FormIT, concept
design, focus on the appreciation of INNOVATION DESIGN
opportunities and on generating the basic Appreciate Opportunities
needs that different stakeholders have of Design Innovation(s)
process.
Usefulness
Use
During this process it is important to keep the five Key Principles in mind and
to consider how, for example, value can be created for the users, how the
users can influence the process and the innovation, how sustainability take
form in this cycle, how openness should take form and how the process
should be designed to capture as realistic situation as possible.
When the data collection process is finalised, the users’ expressions should
be analysed and needs should be generated and translated into concepts,
and by that, the focus for the work shifts from generating
needs to designing concepts.
The aim is to gain insights into what needs users might have of the innova-
tion. This process can be combined with the evaluation phase in later stages
in the innovation process, but at the start of the project it is crucial that this
process is a separate process to ensure that user needs is the driving force
of the development of the design throughout the whole innovation process.
We suggest using focus-group interviews as method for data-collection
since they are easy and effective. In these groups, the process benefit from
a mixture of roles; users, developers, business people and so forth.
In this phase the following issues and questions needs to be managed and decided
to start with before designing the process as a whole. 30
What is the purpose of the appreciating opportunities phase in the project?
What do you want to achieve?
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
Who are the target user-groups that need to be involved in this process? How
check- should they be involved? What are the users expected to contribute with?
list
Which needs, requirements and wants does the users have or express in
the study?
How are the Key Principles adressed in this phase?
Cycle 1, phase 2
Designing Concept
il of Norway • Nord
Counc en N
arch ord
Rese For
sk
he •R
• T
a an
b
ry
Energy Saver
nis
Ta
•
lo
Vin
oks
nov
sM
in your hand
a
uvo
logy and Innovation • Liet
32
chno
is
ies.
ce Te
art
ien
c
sm
r S
o
w.
f
cy
ww
en
Ag
anish
D
Example of concept
Cycle 1, phase 3
Evaluate Utility and Usefulness
Prototype Design
The second cycle starts with the process of
identifying stakeholders’ needs in the innova- INNOVATION DESIGN
tion. That is, when using a innovation, what Appreciate Opportunities
needs are then important for the users? Design Innovation(s)
PROTOTYPE DESIGN
One way of doing this is to keep the Appreciate Opportunities
Use
The focus here is to find what needs users have. We want to find the basis
for the design of the systems interface, and its functionality. The overall pur-
pose is to collect sufficient, relevant, and proper data so that stable require-
ments can be produced. You already have a picture of the requirements, but
they need to be expanded, clarified and confirmed.
36
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
Which hardware should the innovation be designed for? (e.g. mobile phone,
check- PC, surf pads, or other gadgets)
list
Document and design the prototypes:
Decide on what level the prototypes must be described to express the feeling
you want to mediate.
How are the Key Principles adressed in this phase?
Constantly go through the design to make sure that the user needs, values
and requirements have been considered. Iterate in the process to make the
design more and more focused and detailed.
Cycle 2, phase 3
Usability Evaluation
Innovation Design
The third cycle starts by analysing the re-
sults from the usability evaluation in order INNOVATION DESIGN
to generate changes in the needs of and Appreciate Opportunities
in the innovation. Design Innovation(s)
Use
Cycle 3, phase 1
Appreciating Opportunities
The aim is to gain insights into what needs users might have both of and in
39 the innovation. As in earlier phases, the questions that need to be answe-
red are focused on identifying who the users are etc. This process can be
combined with the evaluation phase in previous cycles in the process, for
guidance see cycle one and two. Questions regarding both utility and usa-
bility issues needs to be formulated and asked to the users.
check-
list
Cycle 3, phase 2
Innovation design
The aim of this design phase is to move from a high-fidelity prototype with a
focus on users identified needs to a innovation. This means to include both
business model aspects as well as designing a fully functioning innovation.
The main objective is to re-design the innovation according to feedback
gained in earlier phases.
check-
list
Cycle 3, phase 3
User Experience Evaluation
40
The focus is to encourage users to express their thoughts and attitudes
towards the design. User experiences goals can be both positive and nega-
tive, for example both enjoyable or frustrating. They are primarily subjective
qualities. User experience goals differ from the more objective usability goals
in that they are concerned with how users experience an innovation from
their perspective.
test period?
check-
list
Develop a “test-storyline” to support the users in their test showing what
is expected from them:
• Activities they must do, for example, number of surveys, typical tasks,
use of certain functionality, etc.
• Activities they can expect from us
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
11001101000110101011100011111001010101100010101101101011101001
• Frequency of use
check- • Test-period, for how long will the test pro-long
list
• Time required from them
Are there any ethical considerations that need to be handled?
Create questions or other material for the evaluation focusing on what should be.
Develop questions on the basis of the users identified user needs, values and
requirements in the system and relate them to experiences.
How are the Key Principles adressed in this phase?
41
Technology
43
PROCESS IN
SMARTIES
The SmartIES project was carried out in collaboration between Iceland,
Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Lithuania. The project started in 2010
and ended in December 2012. The overall objective of the project was to
exchange, analyse and disseminate Smart City Living Lab pilot initiatives in
the area of Energy saving towards successful implementation of a Nordic
transnational best-practice Smart City Living Lab pilot. The project focused
on energy saving solutions for individual households, in private houses and
in transportation.
The process of the SmartIES project was set up in three iterative cycles
following the FormIT Living Lab methodology with a strong focus on
the five Key Principles. As a result the FormIT methodology has been
used and evaluated and thereby also strengthened to better embody
the five Key Principles.
45 In the first cycle and first phase needfinding was conducted through user-
pool brainstorming sessions where the users told their stories and needs.
We also discussed ideas, and suggestions on energy saving solutions were
given. This phase also included public authorities, developers and providers
of energy saving solutions. The sessions were conducted in all participating
countries, and with the best practice Living Lab methods. The user-pool
suggestions (and solutions) were documented in each country and then
compared and packaged into one report where future scenarios and con-
cepts were described.
In the next phase these scenarios were elaborated further and two concepts
(Smart People and Smart Kids) were chosen among users as the most-wan-
ted pan-national pilot set-up.
In the third iteration a pan-national beta-trial were conducted. The private
businesses involved are experts in energy saving solutions and ICT and they
decided on which concepts they could integrate into their own current ener-
gy saving service offers and also develop further. The experts then proposed
on how to work on development of the concept, time and funding wise. The
project partners choose two proposals for funding and tried to initiate co-
operation between companies, and preferably in different countries, to reflect
a true Nordic cooperation and added innovation value.
Planning of testing was done with The FormIT methodology was used
“FormIT” used as a basis for ite- in the beginning of the pilot to plan
rations of user trials and feedback the process. It was different than
loops, including surveys for both we thought and from the beginning
pre-pilot and cross border pilot. we focused on the cycles in the
In the planning phase the FormIT process. Thereafter we could focus
handbook was very valuable. more on methods for user involve-
ment and evaluation. For example
We wanted to do measurement it made us understand that we
of attitudes among the users. We needed to develop support material
performed start interviews and then for the teachers.
during the pilots we had questionn-
aires and at the end we planned It was also a new experience to
to do interviews. The handbook work in this iterative way and to start
51
definitely gave some ideas on how all over again and again instead of
to design the feedback loop. just continue working. But, in the
end it really improved our solution.
The recruitment of test users was
defined in our plan, we wanted to
have a group of houses that were
similar in size, type and also families
living in them. On both sites the en-
ergy companies have helped us with
the recruitment of test users.
The project consortium had six com- The purpose of the pilot was to try it out
panies from four countries and end and see how it works, if it is usable for
users from two countries. the pupils and the teachers and to see
if we could adjust it to another country.
For the testing we set up collabora-
tion with Luleå Energy, which is the In Sweden we found a partner in
Swedish partner for our cross border KYAB who helped us with adjusting
pilot. They agreed to have equipment the material to the Swedish market.
installed in private households. Now Three schools are participating, two in
we have two households who have Reykjavik, Iceland, and one in Luleå,
equipment installed in Sweden. In Sweden, (Norrskenets friskola).
Norway Trønder Energi is the partner
and here installations have been It was difficult to work in cross border
made in four households. collaborations due to language barriers
52
and different environments in Sweden
Working across border does of and Iceland.
course offer some challenges. It is
a challenge to not be able to meet ‘‘Collaborating with a Living Lab
and discuss with the people testing. was a new experience. We are not
To really see the environment first used to get assistance from another
hand affects the process. We have organisation in that way. Working
on the other hand had a very good with several partners was a totally
collaboration with Luleå Energy and a new experience. If I could do it again
lot of communication to support the I would have more regular meetings
installations in the houses in Luleå. to get feedback and new perspecti-
One other challenge was that we ves. The largest benefit from working
were many partners involved from across border is the learning and that
many countries. Hence, coordination we now believe that it is possible to
and communication became very use the system outside Iceland.”
important to manage.
53 The innovation would offer added The identified value for the users
value to the whole value chain of and society:
this product/service. For example, • Less energy usage = lower car-
energy companies are probably bon emission
interested to sell extra services. • Energy cost savings
The power company could reach • Increased environmental aware-
significantly reduced costs for instal- ness
ling and running AMS, The meter • Benchmarking related to similar
company could beat competitors by users (schools and homes)
offering a more cost efficient solu-
tion, and the ICT company could
deliver a solution for using WiFi to
the power companies as well as
offering an interface for providing the
AMS data to the end user. Conside-
54
The main expectation with this “There are few things that were
project was that our solution would new to us in the ENEGA project.
go to market direct after closing ENEGA is for example the first
the project. We also expected to side-product that we produce
learn something from working with from MainManager, which has no
partners from different countries direct value for our current custo-
and getting to know other markets. mers. It is also designed for kids
Furthermore, we also expected to and as an educational solution,
learn more about AMS. which is also a new experience
for us. It did take some effort
“Expectations were at least parti- to think outside of our standard
ally fulfilled and we have learned MainManager webpage layout
more about what questions to ask and the pilots and feedback from
and what to expect from different users was essential in doing so to
60
parties and what they can deliver simplify the ENEGA web-page.”
or not. How to manage such a
complex process is valuable lear- We have found that it is important
ning for us. Whether we have a that the local Living Lab and the
product or not that goes to mar- local project are working in close
ket we need to test the product collaboration.
more. We will include and extend
the project to be able to test
power control with users.”
One lesson learned is that we should The idea has evolved and matured
have made some delimitation and during the project and each pilot
tested one innovation at the time. It has given new information that had
was too many innovations tested for led to change of direction for the
the first time outside of lab. ENEGA web. It has been an inva-
luable experience to go through this
Furthermore, the complex set process and work under the guideli-
up with six companies from four nes of the FormIT Methodology.
countries (Sweden, Denmark,
Germany and Norway) with over 20
employees involved led to a time
consuming process of coordina-
tion and communication. In the end
the product will include all these
62
stakeholders input and it was good
to have them onboard. But, we were
a bit naive on the complexity. Next
time we will be better prepared to
manage such a complex setup.
All parts of the solution are working, The final product out of the Smart-
even if there are several issues that IES project is a beta version of
need to be handled before it is com- ENEGA. But now the big ques-
mercialized. Furthermore, end user tion is how to proceed? ENEGA
feedback has been essential for all is the second side product made
parts of the solution. The project by ICEconsult that is “Powered by
was extended for one month to be MainManager”. It is different from
able to do final tests. ABB wants the other in the sense that ENEGA is
to include the application in their not something the current custo-
portfolio of products. mers are interested in buying and
it calls for entering new markets
In conclusion Wireless Trondheims which is not an easy task for a small
expectations were met even though business like ICEconsult.
we had hoped for a shorter patch
63
to commercialization. Product
packaging of smart house solutions
must be done to make it easy for
households to see the benefits and
to choose and handle the system.
REFERENCES
1. Ståhlbröst, A. and Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Exploring Users Motivation in Innovation Com-
munities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 2011.
14(4): p. 298-314.
2. Følstad, A., Living Labs for Innovation and Development of Information and Communi-
cation Technology: A Literature Review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organisations
and Networks, 2008. 10 (Special Issue on Living Labs,): p. 100-131.
3. Feurstein, K., et al., Living Labs: A New Development Strategy, in European Living
Labs - A New Approach for Human Centric Regional Innovation, Schumacher, J. and
Niitamo, V.P., Editors. 2008, Wissenschaftlicher: Berlin. p. 1-14.
4. Schuurman, D., Evens, T., and Marez, L.D., A Living Lab research approach for mobile
TV, in Proceedings of the seventh european conference on European interactive televi-
sion conference. 2009, ACM: Leuven, Belgium.
5. Mulder, I., et al., Real-World Innovation in Rural South Africa. The Electronic Journal for
Virtual Organisations and Networks, 2008. 10(Special Issue on Living Labs): p. 7-20.
6. Schaffers, H. and Kulkki, S., Living Labs: A Strategy for Open Innovation Fostering Rural
65 Development. Asia-Pacific Tech Monitor, Special Issue on Open Innovation: A New
Paradigm in Innovation Management, 2007(September-October 2007).
7. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Ståhlbröst, A., Living Lab - an Open and Citizen-Centric
Approach for Innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development,
2009. 1(4): p. 356-370.
8. Ballon, P., Pierson, J., and Delaere, S. Open Innovation Platforms for Broadband Servi-
ces: Benchmarking European Practices. in 16th European Regional Conference. 2005.
Porto, Portugal.
9. Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V.P., and Kulkki, S., State-of-the-Art in Utilizing Living Labs Ap-
proach to User-centric ICT innovation - a European approach. 2005, Centre of Distance
Spanning Technology at Luleå University of Technology, Sweden, Nokia Oy, Centre for
Knowledge and Innovation Research at Helsinki School of Economics, Finland.
10. Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F.A.J., and Mensink, W.H., Unpacking European Living Labs: Ana-
lyzing Innovation’s Social Dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 2010.
4(1): p. 60-85.
11. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., et al. A Milieu for Innovation - Defining Living Labs. in The 2nd
ISPIM Innovation Symposium - Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Manage-
ment. 2009. New York City, USA.
12. van de Vrande, V., et al., Open Innovation in SMEs: Trends, Motives and Management
Challenges. Technovation, 2009. 29: p. 423-437.
13. Praest Knudsen, M. and Bøtker Mortensen, T., Some Immediate - But Negative - Ef-
fects of Openness on Prodeuct Development Performance. Technovation, 2011. 31: p.
54-64.
14. Chesbrough, H., The Era of Open Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2003.
44(3): p. 35-42.
15. Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation; A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Inno-
vation, in Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, Chesbrough, H., Vanhaver-
beke, W., and West, J., Editors. 2006, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
16. Chesbrough, H., Open Service Innovation - Rethinking your business to grow and com-
pete in a new era. 2011, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Huizingh, K.R.E., Open Innovation: State of the Art and Future Perspectives. Technova- 66
tion, 2011. 21: p. 2-9.
18. Chesbrough, H. and Appleyard, M., Open Innovation and Strategy. California Manage-
ment Review, 2007. 50(1): p. 57-76.
19. Bond E, U., et al., Reputational Effectiveness in Cross-Functional Working Relations-
hips. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2004. 21(1): p. 44-60.
20. Sleeswijk Visser, F., van der Lugt, R., and Stappers, P.J., Sharing User Experiences in
the Product Innovation Process: Participatory Design Needs Participatory Communica-
tion. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2007. 16(1): p. 35-45.
21. Barki, H. and Hartwick, J., Rethinking the Concept of User Involvement. MIS Quarterly,
1989. March: p. 52-63.
22. Di Gangi, P.M. and Wasko, M., Steal my idea! Organizational adoption of user inno-
vations from a user innovation community: A case study of Dell IdeaStorm. Decision
Support Systems, 2009. 48(1): p. 303-312.
23. von Hippel, E., Democratizing Innovation. 2005, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press.
24. Magnusson, P., Customer-Oriented Product Development - Experiments involving users
in service innovation, in Stockholm: Economic Research Institute. 2003, Stockholm:
School of Economics: Stockholm.
25. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. and Ståhlbröst, A. Participatory Design - One Step Back or Two
Steps Forward. in PDC 2008 Experiences and Challenges. 2008. Bloomington, Indiana,
USA.
26. Yoo, Y., Computing in Everyday life: A Call for Research on Experiental Computing. MIS
Quarterly, 2010. 34(2): p. 213-231.
27. Ståhlbröst, A., et al. Striving for Realism in a User-involvement Process. in 2nd ISPIM
Innovation Symposium - Stimulating Recovery - The Role of Innovation Management.
2009. New York City, USA.
28. Mingers, J. and Willcocks, L., Social Theory and Philosophy for Information Systems.
2004, Chichester: John wiley & Sons.
67 29. Markopoulos, P. and Rauterberg, G.W.M., LivingLab: A White Paper, 35, I.A.P.R., Editor.
2000. p. 53-65.
30. Ståhlbröst, A., Forming Future IT - The Living Lab Way of User Involvement, in De-
partment of Business Administration and Social Sciences. 2008, Luleå University of
Technology.
31. Boztepe, S., User Value: Competing Theories and Models. International Journal of
Design, 2007. 1(2): p. 55-63.
32. Cagan, J. and Vogel, C.M., Creating breakthrough products: Innovation from product
planning to program approval. 2002, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
33. Patnaik, D., System Logics: Organizing Your Offerings to Solve People´s Big Needs.
Design Management Review, 2004. Summer 2004: p. 50-57.
34. Patnaik, D. and Becker, R., Needfinding: The Why and How of Uncovering People’s
Needs. Design Management Journal, 1999. 10(2): p. 35-43.
35. Helander, N. and Ulkuniemi, P., Customer Percieved Value in the Software Business.
Journal of HIgh Technology Management Research, 2012. 23: p. 26-35.
36. Scholer, A.A. and Higgins, E.T., Exploring the complexities of value creation: The role of
engagement strength. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2009. 19(2): p. 137-143.
37. Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P., and Akaka, M.A., On value and value co-creation: A service
systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 2008. 26(3): p.
145-152.
38. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R., Service-Dominant Logic: What it is, What It Is Not, Wha tIt
MIght Be, in The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions,
Lusch, R. and Vargo, S.L., Editors. 2006, M.E. Sharpe Inc.: Armonk. p. 43-56.
39. Watson, R., Boudreau, M.-C., and Chen, A., Information Systems and Environmentally
Sustainable Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community.
MIS Quarterly, 2010. 34(1): p. 23-28.
40. Melville, N., Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quar-
terly, 2010. 34(1): p. 1-21.
41. Checkland, P.B., Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. 1981, Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
42. Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Methodology in Action. 1990, Chichester: 68
John Wiley & Sons.
43. Cooperrider, D.L. and Whitney, D., Appreciative Inquiry - A Positive Revolution in
Change. 2005, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
44. Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D., and Stavros, J.M., Appreciative Inquiry Handbook. 2005,
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
45. Norum, K.E., Appreciative Design. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2001.
18: p. 323-333.
46. Holst, M. and Ståhlbröst, A., Enriching the Process of Appreciating Needs with Storytel-
ling. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society., 2006. Vol. 2(4): p.
61-68.
47. Ståhlbröst, A. and Holst, M., Appreciating Needs for Innovative IT Design. International
Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 2006. Vol. 6.
48. Patnaik, D. and Becker, R., Needfinding: The Why and How of Uncovering People’s
Needs. Design Management Journal, 1999. 10(2): p. 37-43.
49. Kankainen, A. and Oulasvirta, A. Design Ideas for Everyday Mobile and Ubiquitous
Computing Based on Qualitative User Data. in User Interface for All, LNCS 2615. 2003.
Berlin.
50. Mirijamdotter, A., Somerville, M.M., and Holst, M., An Interactive and Iterative Evaluation
Approach for Creating Collaborative Learning Environments. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems Evaluation (EJISE), 2006. 9(2): p. 83-92.
51. Ståhlbröst, A. and Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., FormIT – An Approach to User Involvement,
in European Living Labs - A new approach for human centric regional innovation, Schu-
macher, J. and Niitamo, V.-P., Editors. 2008, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin. p. 63-76.
52. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., and Preece, J., Interaction Design: beyond human-computer
interaction. 2nd ed. 2007, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
69