Development of a Tool to Support the Sustainable Management of Urban Living Labs as Platforms for Co-Creation ^†

Abstract

This study focuses on living labs as ‘platforms for co-creation (i.e., platform-level living labs)’, in which multiple co-creation projects on diverse social issues are promoted through mutual interaction. The long-term operation of such a platform-level living lab is important for achieving social innovation and transformation through the living lab approach; however, methods and tools to support its sustainable management and operation have not been developed. Therefore, this study aims to identify key elements and develop a tool for the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs. It undertakes a qualitative analysis of data collected from in-depth interviews conducted with experts who have organised actual cases of long-term practising platform-level living labs in Japan. We also conduct a case-based application of the developed canvas tool and find that it enables us to consider various perspectives that are important when setting up and managing a platform-level living lab. This study also provides a ‘first step’ for further discussions on a methodology for the integrated use of multi-level canvases in the sustainable management of platform-level living labs.

1. Introduction

Living labs have recently gained attention as an approach to technological and social innovation to achieve a sustainable society [1,2,3]. A long-term co-creation approach with citizens is important to achieve social transformation that includes a change in people’s mindsets beyond realising technological innovation [3]. Social issues in a region or city are generally not single issues but rather multiple issues intertwined with various factors; this kind of problem is often referred to as a ‘wicked problem’ [4]. Scholars highlight the importance of the urban living lab (ULL) as an approach to enabling long-term co-creation aimed at tackling wicked problems. A ULL is defined as a forum for innovation in an urban setting integrating people as co-creators [5,6,7]. As this definition indicates, a ULL is regarded as a ‘platform for co-creation’ set up and continuously operating in a city or region where multiple co-creation projects on diverse social issues are promoted through mutual interaction [8,9]. In managing and operating such a co-creation platform, sustainability is important to enable the creation of comprehensive solutions and long-term actions for social transformation. However, most living lab initiatives are project-based [1]; they are promoted based on a specific research budget and are subject to project duration constraints. Even for project-level living labs, which are mainly managed to achieve specific objectives or outputs (e.g., validating technology and creating solution ideas for market introduction), various factors (e.g., user dropout) may cause co-creation activities to stagnate during the project period. Thus, sustainable operation is an important element in their effective management. By contrast, the living lab as a co-creation platform refers to an ecosystem established in a region or city as a platform for various co-creation projects. This type of living lab functions as an open and participatory learning environment in which stakeholders involved in multiple projects collaborate and influence each other. This means that co-creation platforms support various co-creation projects without a predetermined time frame, making the sustainability of its operation more essential than that for project-level initiatives.

In previous living lab studies, many scholars have indicated that long-term, sustainable living lab operations are major challenges in implementing innovation in society through a living lab approach [10,11,12,13,14]. In addition, although several practical tools (e.g., guidebooks and canvas) have been developed to support living lab practices [15,16,17,18], their main focus is on project-level initiatives rather than living labs as co-creation platforms. To address this issue, this study aims to identify key elements and develop a practical tool to support the sustainable management of one type of living lab, namely, ULLs, as platforms for co-creation. To this end, this study conducts in-depth interviews with experts operating living labs as sustainable co-creation platforms and qualitatively analyses the collected data. Based on the analysis results, we identify key elements for the sustainable operation of living labs as co-creation platforms. Then, we develop a canvas tool to support sustainable management. We further demonstrate the use of the developed tool through case applications and discuss its advantages and disadvantages.

2. Theoretical Background and Related Works

2.1. Living Labs for Social Transformation

Scholars argue that there are various types of living labs [1]. The European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL), the biggest global community for living labs, classifies living lab initiatives in the world into six types: ‘living testbed’, ‘ULL’, ‘rural living labs’, ‘living lab as a service’, ‘research driven living lab’, and ‘other type’ [19]. It should be noted that this classification is only one of the various typologies discussed to date. As a different approach to classifying living labs, Abi Saad and Agogue [20] propose a typology of living labs from the perspective of their purpose in science–industry collaboration. Their typology includes four types of living labs: technology sponsors, opportunity spotters, network orchestrators, and community anchors. A community anchor refers to a living lab created to address emerging societal challenges within a specific geographical region or target population group [20].

As discussed above, this study focuses on the ULL, a type of living lab promoted in an urban setting. The concept of the ULL also includes several subtypes, such as those focusing more on urban experiments like testbeds and those that emphasise the context of co-creation with citizens [5]. Our focus is on a type of ULL as a platform of co-creation for social transformation that includes activities such as being operated in a specific urban setting, aiming to solve local issues, and collaborating strongly with local communities. This type of ULL resonates with the concept of the ‘community anchor’ type in Abi Saad and Agogues’ typology [20]. In other words, the specific type of living lab we focus on in this study is the ULL, which resonates with the community anchor model. In general, achieving social transformation requires not only innovation in technological systems but also the transformation of economic value flows and social systems [21]. In this sense, ULLs with a community anchor focus have the potential to achieve such a transformation, as they focus on transforming citizens’ behaviour and lifestyles through long-term citizen co-creation in a city or region [3].

This type of ULL often has multiple projects running concurrently under its umbrella; thus, it functions as a platform for co-creation. For example, Enges et al. report that, in a living lab initiative aimed at a circular economy ecosystem, projects in three dimensions (material, economic value, and knowledge flows) were implemented simultaneously and interacted with each other [8]. Ersoy and Bueren also report that three co-creation projects with different focuses were implemented under the umbrella of a ULL called ‘City lab’, which considered a specific area of Amsterdam as a lab [9]. Outside Europe, several cases of ULLs have been reported in Japan. For example, in the Kamakura Living Lab [22] (a pioneer of living labs in Japan), projects have been implemented on various themes to create a new social system for a super-aged society. These include designing mobility services for local transportation, developing furniture for teleworking, and exploring new ways to use public spaces (e.g., parks). The Oyamachi Living Lab [23], located in the Oyamadai area, a local residential area in Tokyo, also includes projects on various themes, such as the development of a well-being literacy education programme for children, the creation of ideas to revitalise the local shopping street, and the design of cutting-edge childcare support services. In the Oyamachi Living Lab, the citizens involved in each project participate while mutually influencing each other. Summarising these global cases, we find that multiple collaborative projects addressing various urban issues have been simultaneously conducted within a single ULL in a specific city or region. As such, living labs for social transformation should function as open and engaged collective learning environments for social innovation where stakeholders involved in multiple projects collaborate and influence each other [8].

2.2. Platform-Level Living Labs

Schuurman proposes the ‘living lab three-layer model’ as a theoretical framework to structurally understand the living lab concept [24]. In this framework, a living lab is interpreted at three levels: macro, meso, and micro. Macro level refers to the living lab constellation consisting of organised stakeholders. Here, the main focus is on the interaction and knowledge exchange among stakeholders in a living lab. The meso level corresponds to the ‘living lab innovation project’, which represents a co-creation project with specific goals and a predefined time frame (i.e., project duration). As Schuurman [24] shows, in the case of the Flemish Living Lab initiative, multiple projects (i.e., meso-level living labs) are often implemented within a single macro-level living lab. The third level, the micro level, refers to a ‘living lab methodology consisting of different research steps’, which correspond to the dimensions of co-design and participatory design processes in each living lab project.

The cases of living labs for social transformation described in the previous section can be illustrated structurally using this three-layer model. For example, each living lab established in a city or region as a platform for co-creation (e.g., City Lab, the Kamakura Living Lab, and the Oyamachi Living Lab) corresponds to a macro-level (or platform-level) living lab, and projects with specific themes (e.g., projects related to mobility services, furniture development, and public space usage in the Kamakura Living Lab) correspond to meso-level (or project-level) living labs. The co-creation process, including specific methods and workshops for each project, corresponds to the micro level. Thus, we captured a living lab for social transformation as a multi-layered structure based on a three-layer model. To discuss the sustainability of living lab initiatives, this study emphasises two levels: the platform level, which captures the holistic structure of living lab initiatives, and the project level, which includes multiple co-creation projects promoted on the platform layer (Figure 1).

2.3. Tools to Support Living Lab Practices

Previous studies have developed various tools to support the setting-up and operation of living labs. In some large research projects on living labs conducted in Europe, one of the important deliverables was guidebooks describing living lab concepts and processes in an easy-to-understand manner [25,26,27,28,29]. Some of these guidebooks have been published openly by the ENoLL community. As achievements beyond just a guidebook, the SISCODE project has published a practical tool that includes printable worksheets that can be used in various phases of a living lab [30]. Akasaka et al. developed a self-assessment checklist to support the effective management of living lab projects [31].

One of the most useful tools to comprehensively support the setting-up as well as the operation and management of living labs is the ‘canvas’ tool. Canvas tools graphically represent a set of key elements related to the design and operation of a living lab project in the form of canvas sheets. They enable practitioners to conceptually design the entire structure of a living lab project by filling in each element in a canvas. A canvas sheet filled in at the very beginning of a living lab project represents the ‘hypothesis’ for the project operation [32]. Thus, by comparing this with the data obtained through actual living lab operations, insights can be obtained to effectively improve and manage living lab projects. Several canvas tools have been developed for this purpose. For example, existing canvas tools that provide a comprehensive perspective on the setting-up and operation of living lab projects include ENoLL’s ‘living lab mapping canvas’ [17] and the ‘living lab canvas’ introduced in [16]. Furthermore, in the field of co-design, a related research area with methodological similarities to the living lab approach, the ‘Empathic Co-design Canvas’ has been proposed to support the design and management of co-design projects [33]. Some other canvas tools focus on a specific perspective in living lab operations, such as ‘Innovatorix’ for innovation management processes [32], the ‘LIAISON Business Model Canvas’ for business model design [17], and the ‘Governance Model Canvas’ for project governance [17]. These tools were developed mainly through large-scale living lab projects in Europe; they strongly reflect practical experiences and findings. In this sense, they correspond to the ‘intermediate knowledge products’ [34] or ‘translational resources’ [35] that embody theoretical and practical knowledge in the support tools for the living lab and co-design practices [35].

Some existing tools, such as the Living Lab Canvas, Innovatorix, and Empathic Co-design Canvas, aim to design and manage project-level living labs. Meanwhile, ENoLL’s living lab mapping canvas includes both platform- (e.g., the overall stakeholder structure) and project-level elements (e.g., co-creation objectives and specific actions). This means that while the canvas can provide a comprehensive perspective, it is difficult to clearly separate the different layers (macro, meso, and micro) in the discussion on the living lab set-up and operation. Other canvases (i.e., the Governance Model Canvas and LIAISON Business Model Canvas) also seem to be available in both project- and platform-level contexts; however, they only focus on specific aspects, such as governance or business models, not the holistic structure of living lab initiatives.

2.4. Research Gap

The sustainable operation of platform-level living labs, where various projects (i.e., project-level living labs) are promoted and interrelated, is important for achieving social transformation. However, as many scholars have pointed out, living labs are generally project-based [1], and the ‘sustainable’ management of living labs is a challenging but important issue to be addressed [10,11,12,13,14]. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous section, several canvas tools have been developed to support project operations in a living lab; however, they do not focus on the setting-up and operation of ‘platform-level’ living labs. Thus, methods and tools to support the sustainable operation and management of ‘platform-level’ living labs have not yet been developed. To address this research gap, this study aims to identify key elements and develop a practical tool to support the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs. As discussed in Section 2.1, we focus on ULLs that have a ‘community anchor’ focus among the various types of platform-level living labs.

3. Method

3.1. Setting the Scope

This study focused on cases of ULLs in Japan. For several decades, Japan has been recognised as a technologically advanced country with various technological innovations. The Japanese government has recently supported smart and digital rural city initiatives that use digital technologies to solve social issues in urban and rural areas [36]. The concept of the ULL has attracted much attention in this context, as it facilitates a human-centric approach to technology and urban development through co-creation with citizens [37].

However, unlike in Europe, the Japanese government and national funding agencies rarely provide large-scale and long-term R&D budgets for living lab research, including the ULL. Thus, the organisers of ULLs in Japan must acquire a certain amount of funding from various sources for the stable operation of their own living labs. In addition, Japanese ULL organisers face difficulties in co-creation because of Japan’s socio-cultural context. For example, in Japan, the distance between the government and citizens is often far from local governance. Thus, citizen participation in local social transformation initiatives is generally limited, meaning that they are often conducted in a top-down manner. For this reason, Japanese ULL practitioners must carefully build trusting relationships and collaborative partnerships with local citizens and organisations. Living lab organisers in Japan, therefore, have made various efforts to operate living labs effectively and continuously with limited budgets and knowledge. Thus, they possess considerable knowledge, skills, and know-how for sustainable ULL management. Therefore, it is expected that analysing ULL initiatives in Japan will lead to the extraction of various types of knowledge and know-how for the sustainable management of ULLs. In addition, because the authors have strong connections and access to multiple ULL organisers in Japan, we can collect detailed data on platform-level living lab practices through in-depth interviews with ULL organisers in Japan. These reasons define the scope of this study as Japanese ULL cases.

3.2. Approach

Figure 2 presents an overview of this approach. We first selected cases of long-term practice in platform-level living labs in Japan. After applying the method for case selection, explained in the next section, we investigated the selected cases. Following Merriam’s case study approach [38,39], we gathered qualitative data from multiple sources, including in-depth interviews with practitioners, academic papers, and web articles. In this study, we used interview data as the main data source for analysis; data from other sources were used as supplemental materials. We recorded and transcribed the interview data, which were then analysed using a qualitative text data analysis technique to extract elements important for the sustainable operation of platform-level living labs. By structurally integrating the extracted elements, we developed a ‘platform-level living lab canvas’ as a novel tool to support the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs.

For ethical considerations, the study was conducted based on internal regulations according to the determination of non-applicability by the Committee on Ergonomic Experiments of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (H2022-1224).

3.3. Case Selection and Data Collection

To select cases for the in-depth interviews, we used the purposeful sampling method [40], a technique for conducting qualitative research by selecting information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources [40]. The purpose of the interviews was to obtain data on practitioners’ actual experiences and insights into the setting-up and sustainable operation of platform-level living labs. To this end, we first defined our focus in this study, that is, the platform-level living lab as ‘a co-creation platform, which is operated in a specific area (city or region), where various co-creation projects are promoted under the collaboration among various stakeholders to realise the social transformation of the area’. We then selected living lab cases in Japan that fit this definition and had been operating for multiple years. A living lab manager, who managed the entire living lab initiative, was selected as the interviewee for each case. This was because the interviews were not conducted at the specific project level but at the platform level. If a living lab manager recommended that surveys be conducted with other core members in their living lab, we conducted additional interviews. Consequently, we interviewed seven practitioners using a semi-structured interview technique [41], each lasting 90 min. All interviews were conducted with the interviewees’ consent.

3.4. Data Analysis

We qualitatively analysed the interview data to extract the key elements of the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs. We first transcribed all the recorded data and then coded the transcriptions based on the qualitative text analysis methodology proposed by Kuckartz [42]. In this study, we used a data-driven inductive coding approach, which allows for intuitive and flexible coding based on actual data, rather than deductive coding. After the transcribed texts were coded, they were semantically categorised into groups. We used MAXQDA software (MAXQDA Analytics Pro 2020; ver. 20.4.2) [43] for this analysis.

4. Results

In this section, we present the results of the study. First, Section 4.1 presents the results of the interview data analysis. Next, Section 4.2 describes the results of the canvas tool development, and Section 4.3 explains the proposed process for describing the canvas.

4.1. Key Elements for the Sustainable Management of Platform-Level Living Labs

Following the data analysis, we extracted 17 key elements that practitioners should consider for the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs, which were classified into the following eight categories: value, vision, field, organising team, infrastructure, networking, business model, and project. The 17 key elements and their corresponding descriptions are listed in

Table 1. Key elements for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs.

Category	Key Elements	Descriptions	Aspects
Value	Values for the field	Values for the region/city created through the sustainable operation of the platform-level living lab.	Why
	Values for the platform (PF)	Values or benefits for the PF organising team created through the sustainable operation of the platform-level living lab.
Vision	Visions/goals of the field	Visions or challenges to be solved in the region/city where the platform-level living lab is (or will be) set up and operated.	Why
	Visions/goals of the PF	Visions and goals that represent what the platform organising team aims to achieve.
Field	Field	The region/city where the platform-level living lab is (or will be) set up and operated.	Where, Who
	Features of the field	Geographical, cultural, resource, and urban features of the region/city where the platform-level living lab is (or will be) set up and operated.
	Local actors	Local actors (e.g., individuals, companies, organisations, associations) who are (or potentially will be) directly or indirectly involved in a platform-level living lab.
Organising team	PF owner	The owner of the platform-level living lab.	Who
	Features of the PF owner	Features of the platform owner (e.g., their positioning, technologies, business).
	Organising team	Stakeholders (e.g., individuals, companies, organisations, associations) involved in and committed to the organising team of the platform-level living lab.
Infrastructure	Community	Local communities in the region/city as the infrastructure of the platform-level living lab.	Resources, Who, Where
	Orchestrator	A platform-level living lab manager who facilitates collaboration between different stakeholders and acts as an orchestrator to create new values for the region/city.
	Space/facility	Places (e.g., physical space, digital space, and activity base) and facilities (e.g., experimental equipment) that act as infrastructure for the platform-level living lab.
Networking	Community development activity	Activities to maintain and expand the local communities as infrastructure of the platform-level living lab. This activity corresponds to community engagement.	Resources, Who
	Partnership development activity	Activities to maintain and expand the relationships with companies and organisations outside the region/city committed to co-creation projects (i.e., project-level living labs) prompted in the platform-level living lab.
Business model		A business model to realise the sustainable operation of the platform-level living lab.	Resources
Projects		Co-creation projects that are promoted (or will be promoted or should be promoted) within the platform-level living lab.	What

.

The elements identified cover a broad range of topics. For example, the categories of ‘value’ and ‘vision’ correspond to the ‘why’ aspect in platform-level living lab management, as these categories are used to clarify the purpose and impact of the living lab. Meanwhile, categories such as ‘field’, ‘organising team’, and ‘projects’ correspond to the contents of platform-level living lab activities; they respectively correspond to the ‘where’, ‘who’, and ‘what’ aspects. The remaining categories, including ‘infrastructure’, ‘networking’, and ‘business model’, represent the ‘resources’ that underpin the sustainable operation of a platform-level living lab. As such, the extracted key elements for the long-term operation and management of platform-level living labs include those regarding various aspects, such as ‘why’, ‘where’, ‘who’, ‘what’, and ‘resources’, as shown in Table 1.

The results (see Table 1) include elements that are strongly related to the context of platform-level living labs, especially for ULLs focusing on social transformation in a specific area, as they were derived based on interviews regarding practitioners’ experiences and know-how for the sustainable operation of platform-level living labs. For instance, the element of ‘values for the field’, which refers to benefits and impacts for the city or region where the living lab operates, is an important aspect in collaborative projects with local communities, as it facilitates consideration of social and long-term values rather than project-based short-term values. Furthermore, the identified key elements in resource-related categories (i.e., infrastructure, networking, and business models) are relevant to the context of platform-level living labs, as they function as the ‘foundation’ for effectively operating a co-creation platform that implements multiple projects.

4.2. Development of the Platform-Level Living Lab Canvas

Based on the key elements and categories extracted through data analysis, we developed a canvas tool to support the sustainable operation of platform-level living labs. First, we designed the layout of the canvas by considering the conceptual similarities and differences among the categories and key elements. In doing so, we compared the canvas under development with the existing canvas tools described in Section 2.3 to find elements that should also be added to a canvas tool for the management of platform-level living labs.

Through this process, we developed a canvas tool called the ‘platform-level living lab canvas (PFLL canvas)’. An overview of this tool is shown in Figure 3. This canvas consists of 20 items: 17 key elements, as explained in Table 1, and 3 additional items. Two of the three additional items are related to ‘value monitoring’. Elements related to value monitoring were rarely mentioned in the interviews conducted in this study, as ULLs in Japan put emphasis on planning and operating collaborative activities among various stakeholders (e.g., collaborative workshops), resulting in a lack of innovation management perspectives. However, evaluating the innovation process using appropriate indicators is essential for innovation management [44]. The ‘value-monitoring’ elements are often included in the living lab canvas tools developed in Europe (e.g., Innovatorix, Living Lab Mapping Canvas, and Living Lab Canvas) and are considered important indicators for managing the innovation process through living labs. Therefore, we added two value-monitoring items in the developed canvas, namely, ‘monitoring (field)’ and ‘monitoring (platform, PF)’, to describe how to monitor values for the field (or citizen community) and for living lab organisers. Furthermore, as the concept of ‘business model’ was too abstract for practitioners to describe, we divided it into two sub-items, namely, ‘cost’ and ‘revenue source’, based on the Business Model Canvas [45].

Figure 4 illustrates the positions of the eight categories listed in Table 1 within the PFLL canvas. As shown, the category ‘projects’, which represents the contents of various projects promoted in the platform, is placed at the centre, and four categories related to the planning of the projects (i.e., ‘vision’, ‘field’, ‘organising teams’, and ‘infrastructure’) are placed around it. The elements related to the ‘networking’ category are placed next to the ‘infrastructure’ category, as they refer to activities to maintain and expand the community and corporate partners, which are a part of the resources for project creation. Meanwhile, the ‘business model’ underpins the initiation and continuous operation of co-creation projects, and ‘values’ are created as outcomes of various projects in a platform. To represent such positioning, elements related to the ‘business model’ were placed at the bottom of the canvas and elements related to ‘values’ at the top.

4.3. Step-by-Step Process to Describe the Canvas

In addition to the canvas tool, we developed a step-by-step process to describe the canvas. The target users of the PFLL canvas are the organisers in charge of the operation and management of the platform-level living lab. The canvas can be used in two phases: the setting-up phase (i.e., planning and launching a new platform) and management phase (i.e., reviewing and improving the ongoing platform). Ideally, the canvas should first be created as an initial hypothesis at the setting-up phase, and subsequently (i.e., in the operation phase), it should be used as discussion material for the sustainable operation and management of the platform-level living lab. Figure 5 shows the step-by-step process. The details of each step are explained below.

4.3.1. Step 1: Answer the Question List

First, the users of the PFLL canvas answer the prepared question list (Appendix A). The question list was created based on this study’s analysis results described in Section 4.1 and Table 1; it consists of 20 questions corresponding to each element (i.e., block) in the PFLL canvas. By answering these 20 questions, users can fill in the contents of all the blocks in the PFLL canvas. The order of the questions in the list is designed to be easy for users to answer; thus, we recommend answering the questions in order, starting with the first question (Q1). Some questions, such as the question for ‘networking’ (Q11), are difficult to determine concretely in the beginning phase of the ULL set-up. Thus, some answers could be left blank; however, in such a situation, we recommend adding annotations to the answering space.

4.3.2. Step 2: Map to the Canvas

Users copy their answers to the corresponding blocks in the PFLL canvas in step 1. If there is no answer (only annotation comments), users should copy the annotations to the appropriate space in the canvas. In this step, we recommend using a tool suitable for collaborative work, such as an online whiteboard tool that allows collaborative editing or large paper sheets with sticker notes.

4.3.3. Step 3: Review the Canvas

In this step, the created canvas is reviewed by the various members involved in the planning and operation of a platform-level living lab. Review members should check for, for example, overlaps in elements, missing elements, and consistency between elements. The most important achievement in this step is to reach a consensus on the overall structure of the living lab, with all members involved in the review.

4.3.4. After Filling in the First Canvas: Update the Contents of the Canvas

When using a canvas, it is important to concretise and enrich its contents while conducting several co-creation projects. As mentioned in Section 4.3.1, the canvas includes elements that are difficult to describe specifically during the initial phase of a living lab set-up. Furthermore, there is a co-constitutional relationship between platform- and project-level living labs [46], whereby projects can be generated on the platform, which is expanded by the promotion of projects. Therefore, certain components of a platform-level living lab should be determined during project implementation. For example, stakeholders or communities that can collaborate at the platform level may be identified through co-creation projects. Thus, it is important for users of the canvas to follow an iterative process in which they concretise and enrich the platform components through project implementation rather than describing the complete structure from the beginning.

5. Case Application

5.1. Overview

In this study, the canvas tool was applied to platform-level living lab cases to identify its usefulness and challenges. The canvas tool was developed to support the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs. Therefore, in the case application, we specifically aimed to clarify two questions: (1) Is the canvas tool helpful in visualising the overall structure of the platform-level living lab rather than other level-type (e.g., project-level) living labs? (2) Is it possible for the canvas tool to provide insights for the better operation and management of the platform-level living lab?

Table 2. ULL cases applied in this study.

Question	What We Did	Case Used	Canvas Described
(1) Is the canvas tool helpful in visualising the overall structure of the platform-level living lab rather than other level-type (e.g., project-level) living labs?	Comparative study by describing two types of canvases for one ULL case	Min-sta living lab	PFLL canvas
			Empathic Co-design Canvas
(2) Is it possible for the canvas tool to provide some insights for the better operation and management of the platform-level living lab?	Applying the PFLL canvas to another Japanese ULL case in addition to the Min-sta living lab	Min-sta living lab	PFLL canvas
		Case B

presents an overview of the cases applied to each question. To answer question (1), we conducted a comparative study by describing two types of canvas for one ULL case: the PFLL canvas (the developed canvas tool for the platform level) and the Empathic Co-design Canvas (an existing canvas tool for the project level). The ULL case used here was the Min-sta living lab, in which one of the authors was part of the organising team. For question (2), we applied the PFLL canvas to other ULL cases in Japan in addition to the Min-sta living lab. We then analysed the usefulness of the PFLL canvas based on the application results for these multiple cases.

5.2. Example Cases

5.2.1. Case A: Min-Sta Living Lab

One example case used in this study was the Min-sta living lab, in which one of the authors was part of the organising team. The Min-sta living lab operates in the Kashiwa-no-ha area, one of Japan’s most famous smart cities. This is a ULL that is intended to be a platform where various co-creation projects (e.g., flail prevention, AI cameras, smart homes, and childcare support) have been promoted. The organising team for the platform-level living lab consists of a community management organisation (as the platform owner), the local municipality, an urban development company, and two research institutes. The owners of projects conducted on the Min-sta living lab platform varied for each project and included community development organisations, research institutions, companies, and local governments. All projects were promoted through the active participation of local citizen communities. The Min-sta living lab started in April 2020 and has been in operation for 4 years. In this case application, we used the developed canvas to describe the ‘current’ structure of the ongoing platform and not the plans for setting up a new living lab.

5.2.2. Case B: A ULL in a Long-Term R&D Project

Another case that we applied was a ULL promoted in a long-term national R&D project regarding the social implementation of cutting-edge technologies. This ULL case was still at the planning stage and contained a lot of unpublished information; thus, we identify it only as ‘Case B’ in this study. This ULL is organised by a university and is planned to be set up in a specific area in Osaka city, Japan. The purpose of this ULL is to implement new technologies and create new businesses in a wide range of fields related to important social issues, such as infrastructure sensing, mobility services, and well-being management, through co-creation with local residents, various research institutions, and companies. So far, they have conducted events for building collaborative relationships with local companies and local residents in preparation for launching the ULL as a co-creation platform. In this case application, the PFLL canvas was used to plan the overall structure of the ULL.

5.3. Application Results

Figure 6 presents the description results of the PFLL canvas showing the overall structure of the Min-sta living lab. Figure 7 shows the descriptive results of the Empathic Co-design Canvas, which depicts the structure of a co-design project (a project related to smart home technologies) conducted in the Min-sta living lab. Figure 6 shows the platform level and Figure 7 the project level. In addition, Figure 8 provides the description results of the PFLL canvas for the additional ULL case (i.e., Case B). In this application, one organiser in each living lab described each item in the canvas while reflecting on the goals and structures of the lab they were operating and planning. We asked the organisers to provide annotation comments if they noticed items they had not yet fully considered or felt were challenging. In particular, for the PFLL canvas, they followed the step-by-step process described in Section 4.3.

In these figures, the names of specific companies and organisations are anonymised, as some may relate to unpublished information. In the PFLL canvases created in the case application (Figure 6 and Figure 8), the light blue elements correspond to the living lab components and the orange elements are annotated comments related to the risk factors and challenges found while describing the canvas.

5.4. Findings

5.4.1. Findings for Question (1)

Regarding question (1), by comparing Figure 6 (the developed canvas at the platform level) and Figure 7 (an existing canvas at the project level), it is evident that the PFLL canvas comprehensively visualises and presents information specific to the management of the platform-level living lab.

For example, in the existing project-level canvas, only the stakeholders directly involved in the project (i.e., the organising team, citizen community, and two types of researchers) were described; however, in the PFLL canvas, a broader range of stakeholders in the area, such as other research institutes and start-ups, were holistically explored and depicted. As such, by using the PFLL canvas, ULL organisers can consider and visualise relevant stakeholders in organising teams and local areas. This visualisation corresponds to the ‘stakeholder constellation’, which is an important component of platform-level living labs [24].

From another perspective, the project-level canvas does not include information on the resources that support project promotion. By contrast, the PFLL canvas includes physical, human, and financial resource factors that support the operation of the living lab (e.g., living lab infrastructure and business models). This resource-based perspective is strongly related to the platform layer-focused perspective.

Furthermore, the descriptions of the outputs and outcomes differed significantly between the two canvases. The project-level canvas described the ‘results’ of the project and the positive ‘impacts’ for the project organiser. By contrast, the PFLL canvas includes not only the values for the platform organising team but also the values and benefits for the region or city where the living lab is located. Based on the above, we found that the PFLL canvas is suitable for planning ULLs for social transformation, as it facilitates a focus on achievements (i.e., goals and visions to be achieved and values to be created) for the area or city.

5.4.2. Findings for Question (2)

For question (2), we found from the results of the case application that the PFLL canvas tool can provide insights into two contexts: the setting-up of new living labs and the improvement of living lab operations. The annotated comments added to the canvas included aspects from which we obtained new insights regarding the living lab set-up and operations. For example, from the described canvas for the Min-sta living lab (Figure 6), the organisers realised that the living lab includes a lack of ‘networking’ activities to find new collaboration partners and they must improve their financial management to be more suitable—important findings for improving the operation of the living lab. Meanwhile, using another canvas (Figure 8) described for setting up a new ULL (i.e., Case B), the organisers found four important perspectives that must be considered in launching the living lab: (1) developing new citizen communities that share specific topics of interest, (2) continuously building relationships with companies as potential partners after launching the lab, (3) considering and clarifying the values for the city before launching the lab, and (4) identifying the monitoring items to self-evaluate the values of the lab. As these results indicate, the PFLL canvas enabled us to introspectively review the overall structure of platform-level living labs from a broad perspective and to find important perspectives on how to set up and improve living labs.

6. Discussion

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study aims to identify the key elements and develop a practical tool for the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs. As mentioned in Section 2.3, while previous living lab studies have developed methods and tools to support living lab practices, no studies have developed methods or tools for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs.

The living lab three-layer model [24] mentioned in Section 2.2 is the only previous study that conceptually addresses platform-level living labs. In the three-layer model, Schuurman [24] proposes the macro-level living lab as a concept that corresponds to the platform-level living lab; it is denoted as ‘stakeholder constellations’, which refer to the stakeholder network and its collaboration mechanisms in living labs [24]. The 17 key elements for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs extracted in this study also include elements corresponding to stakeholder constellations (e.g., PF owner, organising team, local actors, and community). These elements represent who constitutes the platform and correspond to the ‘who’ aspect of platform-level living labs. However, the 17 key elements extracted in this study were not limited to this ‘who’ aspect. As mentioned in Table 1, we also identified elements related to the ‘why,’ ‘where,’ ‘what’, and ‘resources’ aspects that should be considered for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs. Furthermore, even in the ‘who’ aspects, we found that activities for maintaining and expanding stakeholder constellations (e.g., ‘community development activities’ and ‘partnership development activities’) should be considered in the sustainable management of platform-level living labs. The elements related to the managerial aspects of stakeholder constellation were not explicitly addressed in existing studies.

As such, this study theoretically extended the previous literature on platform-level living labs by identifying and structuring a wide range of elements beyond the ‘who’ aspect that should be considered in their sustainable management. Furthermore, the identified key elements for the sustainable operation of platform-level living labs include a broader range of topics than previous studies on sustainable management that mainly focus on living lab business models [10,12,13]. In this sense, this study provides a theoretical foundation for practitioners and researchers to have a multifaceted perspective on the sustainable management of platform-level living labs. It is noteworthy that this study focuses only on ULLs and the community anchor type; thus, the results of this study are limited to such contexts. Nevertheless, in terms of clarifying the initial model for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs, this study makes theoretical contributions to the living lab research community.

6.2. Practical Contributions

One of the most important practical contributions of this study is the development of the PFLL canvas based on findings obtained through an in-depth investigation of actual Japanese ULL cases. The ULL is the type of platform-level living lab that is the focus of this study. As discussed in Section 5.3, this canvas provides a holistic framework for visualising the overall structure of a ULL for social transformation in a specific area. This holistic visualisation has practical use because it allows those with little experience in living lab practices to consider various important perspectives when setting up and managing a platform-level living lab. The case application results showed that the canvas allowed ULL organisers to find their own missing perspectives and activities, thus gaining insights for improving living lab operations and supporting living lab launches.

Furthermore, the use of the PFLL canvas to describe living lab structures enabled us to archive practitioners’ thoughts and hypotheses. This visualisation is important for the sustainable management of living labs because it facilitates constructive discussions through the mutual sharing of ideas and opinions around living lab operations. Therefore, we concluded that the developed PFLL canvas is useful for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs, especially in the context of ULLs aimed at social transformation in a specific local community.

Another practical contribution of this study is the connection and integrated use of platform- and project-level canvases, where the former corresponds to the developed canvas tool and the latter to the existing canvas tool. Maintaining ‘coherence’ between projects and the platform is vital for effectively promoting various co-creation projects on a platform. For example, living lab managers should consider whether the goals of each co-creation project are aligned with platform-level goals and visions and whether the outcomes of each project are consistent with the expected values of the platform. To this end, the integrated use of multi-level canvases, namely, the developed platform-level canvas and the existing project-level canvas, is expected to be effective. For example, as Figure 9 shows, coherence between projects and platforms in terms of their purposes and outcomes can be achieved by simultaneously using multiple-level canvases. This integrated use of multi-level canvases enables us to design, operate, and manage living labs for social transformation by systematically considering consistency among the different levels (i.e., three layers [24]) of the living labs.

6.3. Limitations

A significant limitation of this study is that its scope was limited to the following two aspects. First, we focused only on the ULL type of platform-level living labs, specifically, social transformation in a specific city or region. Therefore, other types of platform-level living labs, such as the campus as a living lab [47,48] and living labs that support various projects for technological innovation [49,50], were outside our scope. Thus, we need to investigate and analyse the key know-how in the management of other types of platform-level living labs to develop extended frameworks and canvas tools that fit them. Second, the geographical context of the data collection was limited. We interviewed ULL organisers in Japan to develop the canvas; only Japanese ULL cases were included in the application. Although the Japanese cases that we investigated included a variety of knowledge regarding the sustainable management of ULLs, we need to verify the broader applicability of the developed canvas. Future studies should include the application of the developed canvas to ULL cases in other countries with different socio-cultural contexts.

Another limitation is related to the methodology used for the effective use of the PFLL canvas. As explained in Section 4.3, this study presented a step-by-step process for describing the PFLL canvas. However, a holistic methodology for the use of the PFLL canvas, such as the integrated use of multi-level canvases, has not been constructed. To achieve the effective management of platform-level living labs, we need deeper discussions on the comprehensive consideration and management of the relationships between platform operation (e.g., living lab resources and business models) and project implementation [46]. Furthermore, for the integrated use of multi-level canvases, we need to consider the harmonisation of the terms and concepts used in the different canvases. To this end, collaborating with a world-wide community on living labs (e.g., ENoLL) would be an important approach in our future research.

This study also limits the detailed analysis of the description process of the canvas. In future research, we should analyse the process of describing the canvas in more detail, such as users’ behaviour, communication, and thinking processes when describing the canvas. By doing so, we could clarify what living lab organisers find and learn during the process of canvas description. This type of analysis focusing on a micro perspective is important for clarifying the specific usefulness and impact of the PFLL canvas.

6.4. Towards the Management of the Long-Term Operation of Platform-Level Living Labs

In this subsection, we discuss some difficulties in applying the developed PFLL canvas to actual cases of the long-term operation of platform-level living labs. The first difficulty is the dynamic characteristic of platform-level living labs. In general, the components of platform-level living labs and their relationships change dynamically. For example, the variety of stakeholders involved in platform-level living labs and their levels of engagement change with the influences of the various projects conducted in the platform [45]. In addition, the revenue and cost structures of platform-level business models are not static. To effectively manage platform-level living labs while addressing such dynamic characteristics, flexible changes and adjustments to management approaches are important, as argued in previous studies in the field of community-based co-design [51]. To this end, the PFLL canvas should not be used as a ‘fixed’ diagram but rather a ‘dynamic’ diagram whose content can be flexibly changed and updated. In other words, the organisers of platform-level living labs need to periodically review the canvas once created and to update it based on the current state of the platform; they should also plan the next steps for improving their operations through the reviewing process. Thus, future studies should clarify the process of such long-term use of the PFLL canvas.

The second difficulty is the complexity of the relationships between various elements in a platform. In general, platform-level living labs include various stakeholders. Organisers must sometimes consider the similarities and conflicts between the objectives and needs of various stakeholders and adjust their relationships towards collaboration. In addition, as the PFLL canvas consists of components from different domains, such as business models, infrastructure, stakeholders, and visions, it is difficult to manage the complex relationships between these various components. Although the PFLL canvas makes it possible to visualise the relationships between diverse elements holistically, we need to support organisers in managing the complexity of platform-level living labs, for example, by developing and integrating methods for evaluating the status of the current structure and the relationships among components in platform-level living labs.

The third difficulty concerns the application of the PFLL canvas to platform-level living lab cases that are operated in multiple locations. The PFLL canvas in this study was designed for living labs operated as ULLs in one specific city or region. However, in Europe, some large-scale living labs network various living labs across multiple countries and regions on a specific theme and form a platform on the theme. Thus, consideration of how to apply the PFLL canvas to such multi-site platform-level living labs is an important topic to be clarified in future research.

7. Conclusions and Outlook

The long-term operation of living labs as platforms for co-creation (i.e., platform-level living labs) is important for achieving social innovation and transformation through the living lab approach. Although previous studies have developed several practical tools to support living lab practices, their main focus has been on ‘project-level’ initiatives rather than the platform level. Thus, methods and tools to support the sustainable management and operations of platform-level living labs have not been developed. This study aimed to identify key elements and develop a tool for the sustainable operation and management of platform-level living labs.

This study focused on ULLs, in particular, social transformation in a specific area (i.e., community anchor type), among various types of platform-level living labs. We first investigated Japanese cases of long-term practising ULLs and conducted in-depth interviews with experts operating them. Based on the collected data, we identified key elements that organisers should consider when setting up and operating ULLs. We then developed a canvas tool to support the sustainable management of platform-level living labs. Through a case application of the developed tool, we found that it is useful in supporting the sustainable management of platform-level living labs in two ways: (1) visualising the holistic structure of platform-level living labs and (2) providing insights into how to improve living lab operations. The theoretical contributions of this study are as follows. It extracted a wide range of factors for the effective management of platform-level living labs. It also categorised the extracted factors and presented the structure of key elements for the sustainable management of platform-level living labs. Furthermore, this study provided a first step towards developing a methodology for the integrated management of multi-level living labs.

In future studies, we aim to apply the developed tool to actual practices of platform-level living labs in various areas and contexts to investigate its usefulness and verify its broader applicability in depth. In addition, we aim to develop a holistic methodology for managing relationships among different levels of canvases to realise the integrated use of multi-level living lab canvases.