WP3: Sustainability, Validation and Dissemination iMediaCities WP Lead: iMinds-SMIT Presenting: Olivier Braet Other team members: Pieter Ballon (Head of SMIT ‘Business Research Unit’), Heritiana Ranavoison, Nils Walravens, Davor Meersman.

iMinds-SMIT (VUB): Three research units User Research Unit Business Research Unit Policy Research Unit User behaviour Social design Living labs Market & Value chain analysis Business innovation support Go-to-market strategies Living Labs Policy analysis Stakeholder mapping Policy recommendations

City of Things lab example Titel van de presentatie 18/04/2019 | pag. 7

iMinds Living Lab Toolbox

Living Lab Assumption & Validation tool Living Lab Assumption & Validation Matrix (Rits, Schuurman & Ballon, 2015)

Three layers of a living lab

WP3: Sustainability, Validation, Dissemination Work Package goals: Research the business sustainability of the I-Media-Cities platform and design post-project scenarios Validate all aspects of the solution in a Living Lab setting Disseminate project results Work Package lead: iMinds-SMIT WP participants:

WP3: Sustainability, Validation, Dissemination T3.1: Platform Business Model Scenario Development (iMinds) Builds on T2.1 and T2.2 (user and business requirements) T3.2: Living Labs (LL) Pilot Design (iMinds) Each participant identifies reference groups; critical assessment of needs iMinds-SMIT has extensive experience with LL set-up T3.3: Living Lab Validation (iMinds) LL goes live, with services to be tested among large user groups T3.4: Dissemination and community building (CRB) Link up with academia, cities, local innovators, and European Association of Cinema Libraries

WP3: Sustainability, Validation, Dissemination Chronology & task leads: M2: D3.4 Dissemination and Communication plan (Task Lead: CRB) M3: D3.6 Project Website (CRB) M24: D3.2 Living Lab Pilots Design (iMinds) M30: D3.1 Platform sustainability report (iMinds) M33: D3.3 Report on Living Labs Implementation (iMinds) Cooperation needed for all partners for a co-creation session Start from ideal use case scenario, each for their own envisioned service(s) Write different scenarios, varying with the type of content, service and user group (esp. researchers vs. general population).

Questions to be answered (23 or 24/05) What different user groups do you envision, for which the interface would have to differ? Not only researchers, citizens, and the other film institutes, but also non- profit organisations, cultural institutions, commercial actors, media companies, broadcasters, all the researchers or only approved researchers… ? Can you identify different content categories for which etcetera …? With different rights regimes? Age of content? Special value for the institute? At crossing point: which kind of user group would use / be interested in which kinds of content? What volumes are we talking about? Finally: How should the service(s) that brings this content to different kinds of users differ in interface and underlying characteristics?

Questions to be answered (23 or 24/05) The suppliers of the archived content must have the possibility to determine … 1. which content can be consulted 2. from which date on (if applicable) 3. by which user group (idem) 4. for what duration (idem) 5. for what end-use purpose can it be used (re-use, public, …) (id.) 6. whether there is or isn’t a payment required (id.)

Four answers to the supplied after sessions Service design: How will our service(s) ideally be and look like? Value network design: How do the value chains look like / differ for these services? Financial design: Can we map financial flows on the service delivery flows Technical design: Given the above, what input can we provide to the technical work packages?