IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v338y2023ics0306261923002416.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using living labs to tackle innovation bottlenecks: the KTH Live-In Lab case study

Author

Listed:
  • Molinari, Marco
  • Anund Vogel, Jonas
  • Rolando, Davide
  • Lundqvist, Per

Abstract

The adoption of innovation in the building sector is currently too slow for the ambitious sustainability goals that our societies have agreed upon. Living labs are open innovation ecosystems in real-life environments using iterative feedback processes throughout a lifecycle approach of an innovation to create sustainable impact. In the context of the built environment, such co-creative innovation and demonstration platforms are needed to facilitate the adoption of innovative technologies and concepts for more energy-efficient and sustainable buildings. However, their feasibility is not extensively proven. This paper illustrates the implementation and demonstrates the feasibility of the Living Labs Triangle Framework for buildings living labs. This conceptual framework has been used to conceive the KTH Live-In Lab, a living lab for buildings. The goal of the Live-In Lab was to create a co-creative open platform for research and education bridging the gap between industry and academia, featuring smart building demonstrators. The Living Lab Triangle Framework has been deployed to meet the goals of the Live-in Lab, and the resulting concept is described. This paper then analyses the methodological and operational results introducing performance metrics to measure the economic sustainability, the promotion of multidisciplinary research and development projects, dissemination and impact. The results are completed with a SWOT analysis identifying its current strengths and weaknesses. The results collected in this work fill a missing gap in the scientific literature on the performance of living labs and provide empirical evidence on the sustainability and impact of living labs.

Suggested Citation

  • Molinari, Marco & Anund Vogel, Jonas & Rolando, Davide & Lundqvist, Per, 2023. "Using living labs to tackle innovation bottlenecks: the KTH Live-In Lab case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:338:y:2023:i:c:s0306261923002416
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261923002416
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120877?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Široký, Jan & Oldewurtel, Frauke & Cigler, Jiří & Prívara, Samuel, 2011. "Experimental analysis of model predictive control for an energy efficient building heating system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(9), pages 3079-3087.
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    3. Hargreaves, Tom & Nye, Michael & Burgess, Jacquelin, 2010. "Making energy visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6111-6119, October.
    4. Hargreaves, Tom & Nye, Michael & Burgess, Jacquelin, 2013. "Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 126-134.
    5. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1994. "The Firm as an Incentive System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 972-991, September.
    6. Elena Malakhatka & Liridona Sopjani & Per Lundqvist, 2021. "Co-Creating Service Concepts for the Built Environment Based on the End-User’s Daily Activities Analysis: KTH Live-in-Lab Explorative Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, February.
    7. Davide Rolando & Willem Mazzotti Pallard & Marco Molinari, 2022. "Long-Term Evaluation of Comfort, Indoor Air Quality and Energy Performance in Buildings: The Case of the KTH Live-In Lab Testbeds," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-34, July.
    8. Faruqui, Ahmad & Sergici, Sanem & Sharif, Ahmed, 2010. "The impact of informational feedback on energy consumption—A survey of the experimental evidence," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 1598-1608.
    9. Holmstrom, Bengt & Milgrom, Paul, 1991. "Multitask Principal-Agent Analyses: Incentive Contracts, Asset Ownership, and Job Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 24-52, Special I.
    10. Paskaleva, Krassimira & Cooper, Ian, 2021. "Are living labs effective? Exploring the evidence," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    11. Schnieders, Jurgen & Hermelink, Andreas, 2006. "CEPHEUS results: measurements and occupants' satisfaction provide evidence for Passive Houses being an option for sustainable building," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 151-171, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abi Saad, Elie & Agogué, Marine, 2024. "Living Labs in science-industry collaborations: Roles, design, and application patterns," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Max Zongyuan Shang & Ken McEwan, 2021. "The make‐or‐buy decision of feed on livestock farms: Evidence from Ontario swine farms," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 69(3), pages 353-368, September.
    2. Penelope Buckley, 2020. "Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation : A meta-analysis," Post-Print hal-02500507, HAL.
    3. Robert Gibbons & John Roberts, 2012. "The Handbook of Organizational Economics," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 9889.
    4. Kendel, Adnane & Lazaric, Nathalie & Maréchal, Kevin, 2017. "What do people ‘learn by looking’ at direct feedback on their energy consumption? Results of a field study in Southern France," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 593-605.
    5. Ian H. Rowlands & Tobi Reid & Paul Parker, 2015. "Research with disaggregated electricity end‐use data in households: review and recommendations," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(5), pages 383-396, September.
    6. Ilya Segal & Michael D.Whinston, 2012. "Property Rights [The Handbook of Organizational Economics]," Introductory Chapters,, Princeton University Press.
    7. Dow,Gregory K., 2019. "The Labor-Managed Firm," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107589650, January.
    8. Kirsten Foss & Nicolai Foss, 2001. "Assets, Attributes and Ownership," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 19-37.
    9. Foulds, Chris & Robison, Rosalyn A.V. & Macrorie, Rachel, 2017. "Energy monitoring as a practice: Investigating use of the iMeasure online energy feedback tool," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 194-202.
    10. Valor, Carmen & Escudero, Carmen & Labajo, Victoria & Cossent, Rafael, 2019. "Effective design of domestic energy efficiency displays: A proposed architecture based on empirical evidence," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Niamh Murtagh & Birgitta Gatersleben & David Uzzell, 2014. "20∶60∶20 - Differences in Energy Behaviour and Conservation between and within Households with Electricity Monitors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-12, March.
    12. Xiaokai Yang, 2000. "Incomplete Contingent Labor Contract, Asymmetric Residual Rights and Authority, and the Theory of the Firm," CID Working Papers 45A, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    13. Brown, Christopher J. & Markusson, Nils, 2019. "The responses of older adults to smart energy monitors," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 218-226.
    14. Jessica K. Breadsell & Christine Eon & Gregory M. Morrison, 2019. "Understanding Resource Consumption in the Home, Community and Society through Behaviour and Social Practice Theories," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-18, November.
    15. Maloney, Michael T., 2017. "Alchian remembrances," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 561-582.
    16. David Fredericks & Zhong Fan & Sandra Woolley & Ed de Quincey & Mike Streeton, 2020. "A Decade On, How Has the Visibility of Energy Changed? Energy Feedback Perceptions from UK Focus Groups," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    17. Buckley, Penelope, 2020. "Prices, information and nudges for residential electricity conservation: A meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    18. Buchanan, Kathryn & Russo, Riccardo & Anderson, Ben, 2014. "Feeding back about eco-feedback: How do consumers use and respond to energy monitors?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 138-146.
    19. Harvey S. James Jr., 1997. "A Legal Basis for Workers as Agents: Employment Contracts, Common Law, and the Theory of the Firm," Law and Economics 9705001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 04 Feb 2002.
    20. Burchell, Kevin & Rettie, Ruth & Roberts, Tom C., 2016. "Householder engagement with energy consumption feedback: the role of community action and communications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 178-186.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:338:y:2023:i:c:s0306261923002416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.