El cubo de armonización HSB Living Lab

A. Sasic Kalagasidis; S. Hagy; Ch. Marx

doi:10.3989/id.55038

Autores/as

A. Sasic Kalagasidis Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6160-7170
S. Hagy Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0169-891X
Ch. Marx Chalmers University of Technology https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9517-2830

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/id.55038

Palabras clave:

HSB Living Lab, living lab harmonization cube, innovaciones, co-creación, co-diseño

Resumen

Los Living Labs están emergiendo como instrumentos de innovación en actividades centradas en el usuario. Debido al variado rango de enfoques, constelaciones, prácticas, resultados y longevidad, igualmente variadas metodologías se han usado para describir los Living Labs. Pero estas metodologías pocas veces se han llevado a la práctica. La importancia del trabajo presentado en este artículo reside en que pone en práctica una metodología extensa y establecida, llamada “‘Living Labs Harmonization Cube’ (LLHC)”, con un ejemplo concreto y relevante: el HSB Living Lab. La caracterización del HSB Living Lab según la metodología LLHC se basa en la experiencia personal de los autores durante el diseño, gestión y mantenimiento de este laboratorio en los tres últimos años, y se ilustra con ejemplos. Los resultados indican que HSB Living Lab aún no ha alcanzado la madurez en ninguna de las seis categorías de la metodología LLHC y permiten identificar áreas de mejora.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

(1) ENoLL. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2016, from http://openlivinglabs.eu/

(2) Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R and D Management, 39(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00570.x

(3) European Commission. S3 Theme: Living labs - Smart Specialization Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2016, from http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/living-labs

(4) Climate-KIC. Living Lab Network - Building Technologies Accelerator (BTA). (n.d.). Retrieved December 24, 2016

(5) Bodker, S. (1996). Creating Conditions for Participation: Conflicts and Resources in Systems Development. Human- Computer Interaction, 11(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci1103_2

(6) Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

(7) Sanders, E. B.-N. (1992). Converging Perspectives: Product Development Research for the 1990s. Design Management Journal, 3(4), 49–54.

(8) Linn, G. (1995). Om arkitekturforskningens fullskalestudier. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning, 3.

(9) Veeckman, C., Schuurman, D., Leminen, S., & Westerlund, M. (2013). Linking Living Lab Characteristics and Their Outcomes: Towards a Conceptual Framework. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3 (December 2013: Living Labs and Crowdsourcing), 6–15.

(10) Bribián, I. Z., Capilla, A. V., Usón, A. A. (2010). Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Building and Environment, 46, 1133-1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.12.002

(11) IEA (2013). Transition to Sustainable Buildings. Strategies and opportunities to 2050., International Energy Agency.

(12) Capros, P., De Vita, A., Tasios, N., Papadopoulos, D., Siskos, P., et al. (2014). EU Energy,Transport and GHG Emissions Trends to 2050. Publications Office of the European Union.

(13) Mata, E., Medina Benejam, G., Sasic Kalagasidis, A., & Johnsson, F. (2015). Modelling opportunities and costs associated with energy conservation in the Spanish building stock. Energy and Buildings, 88, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.12.010

(14) Vogel, J. A., Lundqvist, P., & Arias, J. (2015). Categorizing Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Energy Procedia, 75, 2839–2845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.568

(15) Shove, E. (1998). Gaps, Barriers and conceptual chasm; theories of technology transfer and energy in buildings. Energy Policy, 26(15), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(98)00065-2

(16) Slocum, R. (2004). Polar bears and energy-efficient lightbulbs: Strategies to bring climate change home. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(3), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1068/d378

(17) Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2013). Keeping energy visible? Exploring how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term. Energy Policy, 52, 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.027

(18) Ingle, A., Moezzi, M., Lutzenhiser, L., & Diamond, R. (2014). Better home energy audit modelling: incorporating inhabitant behaviours. Building Research & Information, 42(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.890776

(19) Poulsen, R. T., & Johnson, H. (2016). The logic of business vs. the logic of energy management practice: Understanding the choices and effects of energy consumption monitoring systems in shipping companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 3785–3797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.032

(20) Mulder, I., Velthausz, D., & Kriens, M. (2008). The Living Labs harmonization cube: communicating Living Lab's essentials. The Electronic Journal of Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10 (Special Issue on Living Labs).

(21) Følstad, A. (2008). Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. The Electronic Journal of Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10 (August), 99–131.

(22) Kareborn, B. B., & Stahlbrost, A. (2009). Living Lab: an open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 356. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022727

(23) Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A. (2012). Living Labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Re, (September), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/602

(24) Ståhlbröst, A., & Holst, M. (2012). The Living Lab Methodology Handbook, 76

(25) Sweden Green Building Council. (n.d.). Miljöbyggnad. Retrieved January 12, 2017, from https://www.sgbc.se/var-verksamhet/ miljoebyggnad

(26) Boverket. (n.d.) Boverkets byggregler – föreskrifter och allmänna råd BBR. BFS 2011:6 med ändringar till och med BFS 2016:13. Retreived January 12, 2017 from www.boverket.se

(27) Schumacher, J. (2011). Alcotra Innovation project : Living Labs Definition, Harmonization Cube Indicators, 1–24.

(28) SusLab. (2011). Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://suslab.eu/home/

(29) Homes for tomorrow. (2011). Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://www.homesfortomorrow.se/about

(30) Scott, K., Bakker, C., & Quist, J. (2012). Designing change by living change. Design Studies, 33(3), 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.08.002

(31) Hagy, S., & Balay, P. (2014). Adaptable Design for the HSB Living Lab. MSc thesis. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

(32) International Energy Agency (IEA). (2013). Technology Roadmap. Energy efficent building envelopes. Oecd, 68.