UPTEC IT 09 005
Examensarbete 30 hp
Februari 2009
Your Ideas - The Airport Of
Tomorrow
Conducting a pilot study at Arlanda Living
Lab
Björn Remius
Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet
UTH-enheten
Besöksadress:
Ångströmlaboratoriet
Lägerhyddsvägen 1
Hus 4, Plan 0
Postadress:
Box 536
751 21 Uppsala
Telefon:
018 – 471 30 03
Telefax:
018 – 471 30 00
Hemsida:
http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
Abstract
Your Ideas – The Airport of Tomorrow
Björn Remius
The demand for innovation requires companies to create new solutions to be able to
be innovative, and the entrance of web 2.0 related technologies and solutions allow
for a higher degree of interaction between organisations and their customers. This
master thesis conducts a pilot study using a Living Lab concept in an airport
environment at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, where software called Arlanda
IdeaTorrent has been used to let users interact. The software has allowed for ideas to
be submitted which could generate revenues for the involved partners, but the
expected ideas of scale have not been possible to achieve.
The individual report has examined different incentives for participating in open
innovation projects. A questionnaire has been used to show if incentives at an airport
is different from traditional online incentives. The questionnaire shows that at the
airport, participants want to improve their travel situation. To get a continuing flow of
participants it is important to show that the participants ideas are being implemented
at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport.
Tryckt av: Reprocentralen ITC
ISSN: 1401-5749, UPTEC IT09 005
Examinator: Anders Jansson
Ämnesgranskare: Börje Svensson / Jan Gulliksen
Handledare: Fritjof Andersson
Your Ideas – The
Airport of Tomorrow
Conducting a pilot study at
Arlanda Living Lab
Johanna Eriksson
Carolina Jansson
Björn Remius
School of Entrepreneurship, Uppsala University
2009-01-09
Entreprenörskolan i Uppsala har utvecklats och drivs av Centrum
för entreprenörskap och företagsutveckling (CEF) och är ett
samarbetsprojekt mellan Uppsala universitet och SLU.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 2 ~
Abstract
The demand for innovation requires companies to create new solutions to be able to
be innovative, and the entrance of web 2.0 related technologies and solutions allow
for a higher degree of interaction between organisations and their customers. This
master thesis conducts a pilot study using a Living Lab concept in an airport
environment at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, where software called Arlanda
IdeaTorrent has been used to let users interact. The software has allowed for ideas to
be submitted which could generate revenues for the involved partners, but the
expected ideas of scale have not been possible to achieve.
Keywords: Open Innovation, Living Lab, usability, user-centered innovation process.
Sammandrag
Kravet på företag att vara innovativa leder fram till nya lösningar för att möjliggöra
innovationsprocessen. Inträdet av web 2.0-relaterade tekniker och lösningar leder
fram till större interaktion mellan användare och organisationer. Inom ramen för detta
examensarbete har en pilotstudie genomförts med syftet att testa ett Living Labkoncept
i en flygplatsmiljö på Stockholm-Arlanda Airport. Under studien har en
mjukvara vid namn Arlanda IdeaTorrent använts för att möjliggöra
användarinteraktion. Detta har resulterat i möjligheten att samla in idéer som kan
innebära intäkter för involverade samarbetspartners. Däremot har förhoppningen om
att uppnå en hög kvantitet av idéer inte uppnåtts under pilotstudien.
Nyckelord: Öppen innovation, Living Lab, användbarhet, användarcentrerad
innovationsprocess.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 3 ~
Acknowledgments
First of all we would like to thank Anna Arfors and Fritjof Andersson at LFV for their
valuable help and guidance during this thesis and for letting us think “outside the
box”.
We would also like to thank Håkan Ozan, CSC and Niklas Kviselius, Stockholm
School of Economics for sharing their theoretical knowledge in the subject of Open
Innovation and Living Labs. A special thank-you to Niklas for taking time to give us
very valuable advice regarding the academic part of this thesis.
We would like to thank our supervisor Börje Svensson, Uppsala University for help
and guidance during the work with this thesis. For help and advice with our personal
technical parts we would like to thank Jan Gulliksen, Uppsala University.
Since this thesis has included a system implementation, we would like to thank
Kimmy Nordqvist, CSC for helping us out with problems regarding Arlanda
IdeaTorrent.
Since this thesis is part of a collaborative project, we would like to thank Narbeh
Ghazarian at NITA for sharing with us the results of his studies.
We would also like to thank Peter Nordin, LFV for providing us with helpful data
related to SAA.
Writing a master thesis sometimes demands for other than academic help, and
therefore we would like to thank Håkan and the rest of the LFV crew for helping us
out with a lot of practical things in our work.
Finally we would like to thank Maria Wall-Petrini and Anders Dorsell, LFV’s
management team members, for valuable discussions and organisational insights.
Johanna Eriksson Carolina Jansson Björn Remius
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 4 ~
Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 2
Sammandrag ............................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 3
Contents .................................................................................................................... 4
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 11
Figures Tables and Appendices ............................................................................... 11
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13
2. Background ......................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Conceptual Background ................................................................................. 15
2.2 Project Background ....................................................................................... 15
3. Purpose of thesis .................................................................................................. 19
3.1 Problem formulation ...................................................................................... 19
3.1.1 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ................................................................................ 20
3.1.2 Stand ....................................................................................................... 20
4. Limitations of the study ....................................................................................... 21
5. Theoretical models .............................................................................................. 23
5.1 Theoretical introduction ................................................................................. 23
5.2 The 4P model ................................................................................................ 24
5.2.1 Working the product ............................................................................... 24
5.2.2 Managing the price ................................................................................. 25
5.2.3 Handling the place/position ..................................................................... 25
5.2.4 Managing promotion ............................................................................... 25
5.3 The Technology Adoption Life cycle ............................................................. 26
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 5 ~
5.3.1 Innovators ............................................................................................... 26
5.3.2 Early adopters ......................................................................................... 27
5.3.3 Early majority ......................................................................................... 27
5.3.4 Late majority .......................................................................................... 27
5.3.5 Laggards ................................................................................................. 27
5.4 The Marketing Process .................................................................................. 27
5.5 Theoretical critique ........................................................................................ 28
5.5.1 Unsuitability of concepts ......................................................................... 28
5.5.2 Change of paradigm ................................................................................ 29
5.5.3 User focus ............................................................................................... 29
5.5.4 What the customer say they want is not always what they actually buy ... 30
5.5.5 Nothing new really .................................................................................. 30
6. Key Concepts ...................................................................................................... 31
6.1 Closed versus Open Innovation ...................................................................... 31
6.1.1 Closed Innovation ................................................................................... 32
6.1.2 Open Innovation ..................................................................................... 32
6.2 Open source ................................................................................................... 34
6.2.1 Open source software development ......................................................... 34
6.2.2 Rules of Open Source ............................................................................. 35
6.3 Living Lab ..................................................................................................... 35
6.3.1 Concept................................................................................................... 35
6.3.2 Why use a Living Lab ............................................................................. 36
7. Test Settings ........................................................................................................ 37
7.1 Arlanda Living Lab........................................................................................ 37
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 6 ~
7.1.1 Work Packages ....................................................................................... 37
7.1.2 The Innovation Process - Operational Level ............................................ 38
7.1.3 The Innovation Process - Functional Level .............................................. 39
7.1.4 The Innovation Process - Strategic Level ................................................ 39
7.2 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ....................................................................................... 39
7.2.1 System Explanation ................................................................................ 40
7.2.2 Log in ..................................................................................................... 40
7.2.3 Voting ..................................................................................................... 41
7.2.4 Iteration and commenting ........................................................................ 42
7.2.5 Ideas being developed ............................................................................. 42
7.2.6 Implemented ideas .................................................................................. 43
7.3 The stand ....................................................................................................... 43
7.3.1 Stand Position ......................................................................................... 43
7.3.2 Stand Design ........................................................................................... 43
8. Method ................................................................................................................ 45
8.1 Applying theoretical models .......................................................................... 45
8.1.1 Conducting a pilot study ......................................................................... 45
8.1.2 Applying the Marketing Process ............................................................. 45
8.1.3 Applying the 4P model ............................................................................ 45
8.2 The Pilot Test ................................................................................................ 47
8.2.1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 47
8.2.2 Approaches at the stand .......................................................................... 48
8.2.3 Flow observation method ........................................................................ 50
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 7 ~
8.3 Operationalisation .......................................................................................... 51
9. Collected data ...................................................................................................... 53
9.1 Living Lab ..................................................................................................... 53
9.1.1 Involvement from participating organisations .......................................... 53
9.1.2 Involvement of technology providers ...................................................... 53
9.1.3 Involvement of different companies and organisations ............................ 53
9.1.4 Openness and neutrality .......................................................................... 54
9.1.5 Involvement from public interests and government ................................. 54
9.1.6 User Involvement as a source of innovation and validation. .................... 54
9.1.7 Involvement from researchers ................................................................. 54
9.2 Communication towards employees ............................................................... 54
9.3 Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 55
9.4 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ....................................................................................... 56
9.4.1 Log in ..................................................................................................... 57
9.4.2 Voting ..................................................................................................... 57
9.4.3 Commenting ........................................................................................... 58
9.4.4 Submit an idea ........................................................................................ 59
9.4.5 Personal pages ........................................................................................ 59
9.4.6 Language ................................................................................................ 60
9.4.7 Different sorts of users ............................................................................ 61
9.4.8 Delays ..................................................................................................... 61
9.4.9 Cost per idea ........................................................................................... 61
9.5 Ideas in Arlanda IdeaTorrent.......................................................................... 62
9.5.1 Type of ideas .......................................................................................... 62
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 8 ~
9.5.2 Hour of submittal .................................................................................... 63
9.5.3 Submitting ideas on specific weekdays.................................................... 64
9.5.4 Duplicates ............................................................................................... 64
9.5.5 Ideas not submitted into Arlanda IdeaTorrent .......................................... 64
9.6 The stand ....................................................................................................... 65
9.6.1 Flow ....................................................................................................... 65
9.6.2 Approaches ............................................................................................. 66
9.6.3 Snowstorm .............................................................................................. 68
10. Comparing Arlanda IdeaTorrent with other systems .......................................... 69
10.1 Layout ......................................................................................................... 69
10.2 Idea presentation .......................................................................................... 71
10.3 Log in .......................................................................................................... 71
10.4 Idea submitting ............................................................................................ 71
10.5 Functionality ................................................................................................ 72
10.6 Feedback ..................................................................................................... 73
10.7 System summary.......................................................................................... 74
11. Analysis ............................................................................................................ 77
11.1 Organisational demands on a Living Lab ..................................................... 77
11.1.1 Demands of change ............................................................................... 77
11.1.2 Organisational goals .............................................................................. 77
11.1.3 Organisational challenges ...................................................................... 77
11.1.4 Communication ..................................................................................... 78
11.2 Analysing the questionnaire ......................................................................... 79
11.3 Analysing the system ................................................................................... 80
11.3.1 Problem and solution ............................................................................ 80
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 9 ~
11.3.2 Number of steps .................................................................................... 80
11.3.3 Feedback ............................................................................................... 81
11.3.4 Commenting and voting ........................................................................ 81
11.3.5 Dealing with user variation ................................................................... 82
11.3.6 Information within the system ............................................................... 82
11.3.7 Delays ................................................................................................... 83
11.3.8 Cost per idea ......................................................................................... 83
11.4 Analysing the stand ...................................................................................... 83
11.4.1 Flow ..................................................................................................... 83
11.4.2 Approaches ........................................................................................... 84
12. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 89
12.1 Open Innovation and Living Lab.................................................................. 89
12.2 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ..................................................................................... 89
12.3 The stand ..................................................................................................... 90
13. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 93
13.1 Organisational difficulties ............................................................................ 93
13.2 Communicational difficulties ....................................................................... 93
13.2.1 Fast lane and Investment lane ................................................................ 93
13.2.2 Potential future partners ........................................................................ 94
13.3 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ..................................................................................... 94
13.3.1 Problem and solution ............................................................................ 94
13.3.2 Feedback through e-mail ....................................................................... 94
13.3.3 Number of steps .................................................................................... 94
13.4 The stand ..................................................................................................... 95
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 10 ~
14. Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................ 97
15. References ......................................................................................................... 99
15.1 Literature sources ........................................................................................ 99
15.2 Internet sources .......................................................................................... 100
15.3 Image sources ............................................................................................ 101
Appendix 1 Backlog for Arlanda IdeaTorrent ........................................................ 103
Appendix 2 Brief Arlanda Living Lab monter ....................................................... 112
Appendix 3 Table of flow statistics........................................................................ 116
Appendix 4 Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 117
Appendix 5 Stand planning ................................................................................... 118
Appendix 6 Clothes and stand information ............................................................ 119
Appendix 7 Submitted ideas .................................................................................. 120
Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 121
Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 122
Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 123
Appendix 9 Budget for Work Package 3 ALL ....................................................... 127
Appendix 10 Ideas submitted during specific days and periods .............................. 128
Appendix 11 Evaluation of systems ....................................................................... 129
Appendix 12 Graph displaying the flow at the stand .............................................. 130
Appendix 13 Additional statistical information from questionnaire ........................ 131
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 11 ~
Abbreviations
Arlanda Living Lab ALL
Arlanda IdeaTorrent AIT
Computer Sciences Corporation CSC
Luftfartsverket LFV
Open Source Initiative OSI
Research And Development R&D
SAS Ground Services SGS
Stockholm Arlanda Airport SAA
Stockholm School Of Economics SSE
Work Package WP
Figures Tables and Appendices
Figure Page Table Page Appendix Subject Page
1 14 1 29 1 System specification 105
2 16 2 52 2 Brief 113
3 20 3 57 3 Stand planning 117
4 22 4 58 4 Questionnaire 118
5 37 5 58 5 Flow 118
6 40 6 59 6 Clothes 120
7 40-41 7 59 7 Summary of ideas 121
8 41 8 60 8 Budget 124
9 42 9 61 9 Periods 128
10 44 10 62 10 Comparison 129
11 62 11 63 11 Flow display 130
12 74 12 64 12 Data questionnaire 131
13 74 13 65 13 Questionnaire data 132
14 76 14 66
15 76 15 66
16 77 16 68
17 78
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 12 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 13 ~
1. Introduction
In today’s society the demand is great on organisations to be innovative, and there is
also a demand to produce innovations at a fast pace. Some organisations have started
to examine new and different ways to accomplish this. Some organisations have come
to appreciate the users of their products or services in a way that could increase their
innovative ability. As John Donne said already in the 16th century, ‘No man is an
island in itself’ (Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII, 1624),
organisations are to a great extent starting to understand the potential of including
their users in the development process. These organisations are realizing that the users
of their products actually could be considered as experts, on for example using a
hover, car or computer software. In many organisations the development process has
been a task that included their R&D only. This is what has been called closed
innovation. Today some researchers and organisations claim that to be able to create a
faster innovation and development process, there is a demand to work towards a more
open innovation structure where users have a more important role in the development
process (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).
So, why are we facing a more open innovation structure, or a change of paradigm as
researchers call it? Are we moving towards a more open innovation climate or is this
merely a result of what the era of information technology has in store? Catharina
Melian claims in her doctoral thesis that ‘The Internet continues to change the way
work is conducted, and it is protecting and ushering a new era of collaborative,
participatory and global approach towards innovation. Openness is the hallmark of
these new processes’ (Melian, 2007). This master thesis goes as far as testing if it is
possible to create an environment where the users are the ones performing the
innovation process, and where the involved organisations only take the part of
enabling users to interact, in a way that would not have been possible without
information technology.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 14 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 15 ~
2. Background
This chapter concerns the Arlanda Living Lab project, its involved partners, the
collaboration structure and describes the partner participation.
2.1 Conceptual Background
The heart and soul of many companies are the R&D departments where the next
generation of profit-earning products are produced every year, keeping competitors at
bay and defending market positions. Especially in high-tech industry, keeping abreast
with ongoing development is crucial for long term survival, and thereby managing
this functionality in the R&D department is essential. Traditionally these departments
turned inwards to come up with a new product, feature or service which was then
more or less forced upon the market in question, using marketing campaigns to create
a new demand. The customer was then allowed to buy the product but not invited any
further into company processes. Later on most companies have discovered the
advantages of involving customers or end users into the product development, by
letting them try out and evaluate products trough prototypes, beta testing and similar
product exposures.
Despite this not too recent progress today's globalised markets and advanced
technologies are still raising the R&D demand for new effective and time saving ways
of creating innovation. Any improvement in this matter could potentially create great
value (Shilling, 2008).
2.2 Project Background
In 2007 the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA,
dedicated 11 MSEK to the purpose of trying to increase Swedish organisations' ability
to develop IT services together with end users. Some of this money ended up in the
project Arlanda Living Lab (www.vinnova.se, 2008-09-24). ALL began as a joint
venture between CSC, SGS and LFV with the common purpose of creating a better
Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, and explore the Living Lab concept by establishing a
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 16 ~
Living Lab at SAA. This was the start of the worlds first Living Lab at an airport, an
Airport Living Lab.
The collaborative structure of the project is displayed in figure 1. LFV is the owner of
SAA and SGS is one of the major organisations handling luggage and other services
SAA. CSC has SAS and the aero industry as a part of their consulting portfolio. All
parties therefore have incentives to participate in and take part in the funding of ALL.
CSC is, as the initiator of ALL, somewhat of a driving force in the project, and
employees from CSC handle the ALL project management and takes part in the
project administration. CSC participates in ALL with the main objective to acquire an
innovation business model, including the Living Lab concept, which can be
implemented at other airports and companies in general. CSC as a consulting firm
would benefit from being able to offer such a business model to their clients. LFV,
with its connection to the airport itself, together with SGS primarily handles the
project phases taking place at the airport. LFV participates in ALL hoping to gain
goodwill and positive attention to the SAA brand, and to profit later on from the
emerging innovations. SGS on the other hand hopes to gain a vent and feedback
system for its personnel.
Figure 1: The collaborative structure of the main participants in the ALL project.
The ALL project is separated into six WPs, each concerning one separate part of the
project process. The pilot study of this thesis will be conducted during November
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 17 ~
2008 as a part of WP 3 - Pilot Testing. Software adapted for user-created innovation,
Arlanda IdeaTorrent, will be trialled in a stand at SAA in terminal 5. Both AIT and
the stand will then be evaluated with respect to activity and functionality.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 18 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 19 ~
3. Purpose of thesis
This chapter concerns the purpose of the thesis and presents a short problem
formulation where the two focus areas are presented.
The purpose of the ALL project is to create a Living Lab at SAA. The given
assignment is to carry out a pilot study as a part of this project.
The purpose of this thesis is:
- To establish a testing environment for AIT at SAA.
- To evaluate the test environment and AIT.
- To leave recommendations for the continued ALL project.
3.1 Problem formulation
Figure 2: Hierarchical structure of the ALL project theoretical structure
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 20 ~
The subject being separated into several levels has resulted in two conceptual problem
formulations, which will be discussed later on but not be an object of specific study.
These problem formulations are:
To what extent can Open Innovation be achieved through a Living Lab structure
and/or the ALL structure?
To what extent has the Living Lab functionality been achieved in ALL?
3.1.1 Arlanda IdeaTorrent
The problem formulations regarding AIT are:
To what extent has AIT been a satisfactory system for managing user’s ideas?
To what extent has user activity been induced by AIT, in the form of:
- Comments per idea?
- Votes per idea?
To what extent can achieve ideas of scale by using AIT?
3.1.2 Stand
The problem formulations regarding the stand in Terminal 5 are:
To what extent has the stand been an effective way to attract users to AIT?
To what extent has the stand been an effective way to gather users’ ideas?
To what extent can ideas of scale be achieved by using a stand?
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 21 ~
4. Limitations of the study
This chapter concerns the directives given from the employer and collaborative
partners, as well as other limitations.
This thesis has limitations in time that are both given by outside directives and chosen
by the authors. Involved partners have given the assignment to conduct a pilot study
testing the AIT system in a real environment, as a part of the ALL project. The thesis
is therefore limited to the ALL project schedule. Directives have been given to carry
out the pilot test by using a stand and AIT, but there have been many opportunities to
affect the study, allowing deciding upon research methods and choosing incitements
and other ways to attract users.
The ALL project’s limited funding has limited the study in several ways. It has for
example not been able to use extensive marketing as a way of attracting users or to
choose freely where to place the stand inside the terminal.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 22 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 23 ~
5. Theoretical models
This chapter concerns the theoretical aspect of the thesis. Here important theoretical
models are presented, and how they will help build a ground for the thesis. This part
also presents theory critique and why it is a part of the thesis.
5.1 Theoretical introduction
Melissa Schilling defines innovation “as the practical implementation of an idea into a
new device or process” (Schilling, 2008). In the case of ALL the purpose is to let
users generate ideas that can end up as innovations at SAA and as a result create a
better airport. To do so requires a forum for creativity. In a closed innovation system a
single person or a R&D department are in charge of the creativity of the organisation.
This makes the individual and organisational creativity important for the innovative
success of the organisation (Schilling, 2008).
The idea of a more open innovation process creates demands which might be new to
the involved organisations. Earlier studies have shown that a lot of companies
increase their sales as their amount of resources spent in R&D increases (Schilling,
2008). But, R&D activities can be of various kinds and the concepts dealt with in this
thesis are still evolving which makes it difficult to present numbers of efficiency at
this time.
The ALL project can also be said to be a way of improving the organisations
absorptive capacity, and a way for the involved organisations to receive information
otherwise inaccessible (Schilling, 2008). But as important as it might be to recieve
information from external sources, it is also important for this project to examine if it
is possible to create “ideas of scale”. For this innovation system to work there is a
monetary aspect to consider, and just as economies of scale are important for
companies, innovations of scale are important to ALL (Besanko, Braeutigam, 2005).
This is represented by figure 3.
An underlying thought is that AIT should generate more ideas that later become
innovations for a smaller amount of money than with an in-house R&D system. If this
is not possible then it would be a failure for the concept and system. To have a system
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 24 ~
that generates less successful innovations than the existing way to innovate at the
involved partners would be a failure (Kviselius et al. 2008).
Figure 3: Illustration of how an increased number of submitted problems/solutions could result
in an increased number of implemented innovations. (Kviselius et al. 2008)
5.2 The 4P model
In marketing the 4P model, consisting of four important factors of success, has turned
out as a successful tool. In this thesis the 4P's, Product, Price, Position and Promotion,
have been used when merging AIT and the stand to create a coherent concept
intended to optimize user interaction (Kotler, Keller, 2006).
5.2.1 Working the product
The product is central to what the seller has to offer the consumer, but it is not
everything. Surrounding and additional services might be just as important as the core
product. For example the product packaging or supporting IT solutions can be more
important to the consumer than the product itself. With this in mind one needs to
create an offer, a whole product that is as close as possible to the consumer demand
(Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 25 ~
5.2.2 Managing the price
The aspect of price can differ a lot between the core product and additional services or
products. Elements such as bonus systems, discounts or extra credits can affect the
price. The focus is the total sacrifice that the consumer will do compared to what the
seller has to offer. It is important to understand that organisations can apply to a large
variety of methods when pricing their products and therefore it is important for the
seller to have knowledge about the consumer needs and use (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).
5.2.3 Handling the place/position
To make the product and the offer easy to access for the consumer, sellers can use
different ways to compete with other competitors. In most businesses this creates a
demand for distribution channels for example via the Internet, transports etc. To make
changes in an organisations distribution channels or to change their position is
probably one of the hardest things to change, but a distribution working well can also
create additional value to the consumer. When an organisation chooses its position it
is also more or less choosing the consumer that they are interested in (Lekvall,
Wahlbin, 2001).
5.2.4 Managing promotion
Depending on what kind of market the seller is acting in there will be different ways
to promote the products. The 4P model suggests that promotion should be handled in
two different ways. The first through personal adaptation which for example can be
done at sales events, sales visits, via telephone etc. The other way to promote a
product is through mechanical adaptation where the consumers are applied to as a
collective. The seller uses TV commercials, advertisement in newspapers to name
some. The effect of Internet has been that organisations have the possibility to
combine personal and mechanical adaptation (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 26 ~
5.3 The Technology Adoption Life cycle
The technology adoption life cycle is a model for understanding a markets acceptance
of new products. One of the ALL project objectives is to achieve mainstream
acceptance of the ALL, making this model highly applicable, especially in the
introductory pilot phase. The model divides a product's potential adopters into five
groups according to their different adoption behaviours. These groups are different in
size and dominate different parts of the product's lifecycle, as shown in figure 4
(Moore, 2006).
Figure 4: Graph of Geoffrey Moore’s crossing the chasm model.
http://static.flickr.com/117/307081370_ea221b9eeb_o.png , 2008-12-12
5.3.1 Innovators
This group “pursues new technology products aggressively” (Moore, 2006). They
seek out the product themselves, often even before the official market launch, because
of their burning interest in the product's specific technology. They strongly value
getting to explore new and exciting technology and getting access to it before anyone
else. Moore points out the importance of winning or getting this group involved early
because they have the possibility to persuade others to follow (Moore, 2006).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 27 ~
5.3.2 Early adopters
Early adopters buy new products or services early in the product life cycle, not
because of interest in the technology but because of the competitive edge and benefits
this new product might give them. They relate new products or services into their
everyday life. This group represents the key for opening up any high-tech market
segment (Moore, 2006).
5.3.3 Early majority
The early majority is in one way similar to early adopters, but less interested in
technology and more focused on the practical aspects. The segment does not invest in
innovations before they can see well-established references that confirm these
benefits. Because of the size of the group they make represent a substantial profit and
growth potential (Moore, 2006).
5.3.4 Late majority
This group is big as the early majority but unlike the early majority, this group is
uncomfortable in the technical area. That makes the people in this group wait until
that new innovation has become an established standard and a working support
system around the product exist (Moore, 2006).
5.3.5 Laggards
This is a group of people that do not want anything to do with new technology. Their
reason for being uninterested might be for example economic or personal. Since they
are a rather small group compared to the others in the adoption life cycle, companies
tend to more or less ignore them (Moore, 2006).
5.4 The Marketing Process
Lekvall and Wahlbin describe what they call the Marketing process which includes
four different phases. These phases have been used to outline this thesis.
1. Phase of analysis – where the starting points and conditions have been identified
and analyzed.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 28 ~
2. The Design phase – where the goals of the marketing are being decided and the
marketing program is being developed.
3. The phase of accomplishment – where what have been decided in the design
phase is planned in detail and executed.
4. The following up phase – where the results of the earlier phases are being
followed up and results can give input for the following work.
(Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001)
5.5 Theoretical critique
When conducting a master thesis and deciding about what kind of approach and study
one wants to create there are different paths to choose between. Theoretical
applications can be used as well as different methods. The choice of theoretical
approach and method is important and affects the entire study.
This master thesis builds both on directives from the involved partners and the
suitability of theoretical approaches in the area of innovation management. It is also
important to understand that this study also is a part of research being conducted at
SSE, Uppsala University and within the involved partner organisations. As a result
not all models and theories are yet fully studied and tested. Given the situation it is
important to be critical and reflect around the concepts and the problems it could
bring.
ALL includes two fundamental concepts: Open innovation and Living Lab. From
these concepts the study is being carried through. Even though these concepts are
given as a directive, they might not be obvious and therefore needs some reflection.
5.5.1 Unsuitability of concepts
In this thesis an Open Innovation and Living Lab approach is being used. These
concepts have not been tested in this kind of environment before. Within different
businesses as well as in different firms there are separate ways regarding how the
work is managed but also how innovation is handled. There are differences regarding
factors such as competitive environment, task complexity and management style to
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 29 ~
mention some, which also means that innovation management styles could possibly
be more or less suitable for the organisation (Lawson, Samson. 2001).
Another problem with new aspects on innovation management such as Living Lab
and Open Innovation is that no one yet really knows what kind of organisational and
managerial demands it puts on the involved organisations. Research points out the
importance of both organisational and managerial attention within companies to
provide a satisfying innovation capability (Lawson, Samson. 2001).
5.5.2 Change of paradigm
Another critique is that several researchers in the area talks about a shift of paradigm
when discussing the effects of open innovation (Chesbrough, Appleyard, 2007). The
discussion about paradigm goes back to the book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions by Tomas S. Kuhn from 1962. According to Kuhn, the term paradigm
instead of theory points out what can be rejected and be replaced during a scientific
revolution (Marc-Wogau, Bergström, Carlshamre, 2000).
“When a paradigm is established in a discipline it works as a general opinion and the
effect is more or less governing in an unaware manner for researchers. The paradigm
is experienced as obvious to active researchers” (Johansson, 2003). Kuhn also meant
that different paradigms cannot exist within the same discipline at the same time
(Johansson, 2003).
The term paradigm has through the years received another kind of explanation than
the one that Kuhn himself originally meant. This means that it today is being used
sometimes only to explain a major change within a research discipline (Johansson,
2003).
5.5.3 User focus
Some organisations consider it to be risky to put a large amount of their investments
in the hands of their customers or users. They mean that the user or customer do not
always know what they want and there is a risk in relying too much in them as a
result. One can also discuss whether an organisation could or even should try to
achieve total customer focus in their innovation process. Some parts of an innovation
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 30 ~
process might be to complex for at least some users to handle and as a result also
make a decision (Schilling, 2008).
A problem is the ways that users are supposed to interact with to be able to affect their
situation. If the channel to interact is not easy to reach, this interaction will be difficult
and the result will not be as expected (Abasca, Azevedo, 2007).
5.5.4 What the customers say they want is not always what they
actually buy
When companies put money and effort in conducting a market research, the result
could vary depending on the achieved level of objectivity within the survey. As
Lekvall and Wahlbin describe it, market information is the kind of facts that are
relying on objective foundations for marketing decisions (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2006).
Uno Alfredeen claimed that, before a customer actually buys a product or service, one
can never really know the real potential (Malmström, 2001). In the case of ALL there
is a potential difficulty to measure the objectivity of the results since users are
allowed to promote their own ideas or innovations. But on the other hand this could
create a kind of “buzz” that for example was really important during the promotion of
Apples iPhone.
5.5.5 Nothing new really
To say that the world today is moving towards a more open innovation process can be
discussed. Some researchers would say that this is nothing new and that it is a focus
that has been of interest during a long time. Researchers talk about that organisations
always have tried to listen to the user or consumer because otherwise they would not
be able to sell their product or service. Claiming that the era of Internet has changed
this is only partially true. The channels for interaction might have changed, but does
that necessary result in different or/and better results? (Schilling, 2008).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 31 ~
6. Key Concepts
This chapter concerns and explains the key concepts of Open Innovation, Open
Source and Living Lab.
6.1 Closed versus Open Innovation
Definition: “Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of
knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use
of innovation, respectively. [This paradigm] assumes that firms can and should use
external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as
they look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough 2006).
Table 1: Differences regarding closed vs. open Innovation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_innovation) 2008-09-30
Closed innovation Principles Open innovation Principles
Examensarbete 30 hp
Februari 2009
Your Ideas - The Airport Of
Tomorrow
Conducting a pilot study at Arlanda Living
Lab
Björn Remius
Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet
UTH-enheten
Besöksadress:
Ångströmlaboratoriet
Lägerhyddsvägen 1
Hus 4, Plan 0
Postadress:
Box 536
751 21 Uppsala
Telefon:
018 – 471 30 03
Telefax:
018 – 471 30 00
Hemsida:
http://www.teknat.uu.se/student
Abstract
Your Ideas – The Airport of Tomorrow
Björn Remius
The demand for innovation requires companies to create new solutions to be able to
be innovative, and the entrance of web 2.0 related technologies and solutions allow
for a higher degree of interaction between organisations and their customers. This
master thesis conducts a pilot study using a Living Lab concept in an airport
environment at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, where software called Arlanda
IdeaTorrent has been used to let users interact. The software has allowed for ideas to
be submitted which could generate revenues for the involved partners, but the
expected ideas of scale have not been possible to achieve.
The individual report has examined different incentives for participating in open
innovation projects. A questionnaire has been used to show if incentives at an airport
is different from traditional online incentives. The questionnaire shows that at the
airport, participants want to improve their travel situation. To get a continuing flow of
participants it is important to show that the participants ideas are being implemented
at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport.
Tryckt av: Reprocentralen ITC
ISSN: 1401-5749, UPTEC IT09 005
Examinator: Anders Jansson
Ämnesgranskare: Börje Svensson / Jan Gulliksen
Handledare: Fritjof Andersson
Your Ideas – The
Airport of Tomorrow
Conducting a pilot study at
Arlanda Living Lab
Johanna Eriksson
Carolina Jansson
Björn Remius
School of Entrepreneurship, Uppsala University
2009-01-09
Entreprenörskolan i Uppsala har utvecklats och drivs av Centrum
för entreprenörskap och företagsutveckling (CEF) och är ett
samarbetsprojekt mellan Uppsala universitet och SLU.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 2 ~
Abstract
The demand for innovation requires companies to create new solutions to be able to
be innovative, and the entrance of web 2.0 related technologies and solutions allow
for a higher degree of interaction between organisations and their customers. This
master thesis conducts a pilot study using a Living Lab concept in an airport
environment at Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, where software called Arlanda
IdeaTorrent has been used to let users interact. The software has allowed for ideas to
be submitted which could generate revenues for the involved partners, but the
expected ideas of scale have not been possible to achieve.
Keywords: Open Innovation, Living Lab, usability, user-centered innovation process.
Sammandrag
Kravet på företag att vara innovativa leder fram till nya lösningar för att möjliggöra
innovationsprocessen. Inträdet av web 2.0-relaterade tekniker och lösningar leder
fram till större interaktion mellan användare och organisationer. Inom ramen för detta
examensarbete har en pilotstudie genomförts med syftet att testa ett Living Labkoncept
i en flygplatsmiljö på Stockholm-Arlanda Airport. Under studien har en
mjukvara vid namn Arlanda IdeaTorrent använts för att möjliggöra
användarinteraktion. Detta har resulterat i möjligheten att samla in idéer som kan
innebära intäkter för involverade samarbetspartners. Däremot har förhoppningen om
att uppnå en hög kvantitet av idéer inte uppnåtts under pilotstudien.
Nyckelord: Öppen innovation, Living Lab, användbarhet, användarcentrerad
innovationsprocess.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 3 ~
Acknowledgments
First of all we would like to thank Anna Arfors and Fritjof Andersson at LFV for their
valuable help and guidance during this thesis and for letting us think “outside the
box”.
We would also like to thank Håkan Ozan, CSC and Niklas Kviselius, Stockholm
School of Economics for sharing their theoretical knowledge in the subject of Open
Innovation and Living Labs. A special thank-you to Niklas for taking time to give us
very valuable advice regarding the academic part of this thesis.
We would like to thank our supervisor Börje Svensson, Uppsala University for help
and guidance during the work with this thesis. For help and advice with our personal
technical parts we would like to thank Jan Gulliksen, Uppsala University.
Since this thesis has included a system implementation, we would like to thank
Kimmy Nordqvist, CSC for helping us out with problems regarding Arlanda
IdeaTorrent.
Since this thesis is part of a collaborative project, we would like to thank Narbeh
Ghazarian at NITA for sharing with us the results of his studies.
We would also like to thank Peter Nordin, LFV for providing us with helpful data
related to SAA.
Writing a master thesis sometimes demands for other than academic help, and
therefore we would like to thank Håkan and the rest of the LFV crew for helping us
out with a lot of practical things in our work.
Finally we would like to thank Maria Wall-Petrini and Anders Dorsell, LFV’s
management team members, for valuable discussions and organisational insights.
Johanna Eriksson Carolina Jansson Björn Remius
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 4 ~
Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 2
Sammandrag ............................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 3
Contents .................................................................................................................... 4
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 11
Figures Tables and Appendices ............................................................................... 11
1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 13
2. Background ......................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Conceptual Background ................................................................................. 15
2.2 Project Background ....................................................................................... 15
3. Purpose of thesis .................................................................................................. 19
3.1 Problem formulation ...................................................................................... 19
3.1.1 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ................................................................................ 20
3.1.2 Stand ....................................................................................................... 20
4. Limitations of the study ....................................................................................... 21
5. Theoretical models .............................................................................................. 23
5.1 Theoretical introduction ................................................................................. 23
5.2 The 4P model ................................................................................................ 24
5.2.1 Working the product ............................................................................... 24
5.2.2 Managing the price ................................................................................. 25
5.2.3 Handling the place/position ..................................................................... 25
5.2.4 Managing promotion ............................................................................... 25
5.3 The Technology Adoption Life cycle ............................................................. 26
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 5 ~
5.3.1 Innovators ............................................................................................... 26
5.3.2 Early adopters ......................................................................................... 27
5.3.3 Early majority ......................................................................................... 27
5.3.4 Late majority .......................................................................................... 27
5.3.5 Laggards ................................................................................................. 27
5.4 The Marketing Process .................................................................................. 27
5.5 Theoretical critique ........................................................................................ 28
5.5.1 Unsuitability of concepts ......................................................................... 28
5.5.2 Change of paradigm ................................................................................ 29
5.5.3 User focus ............................................................................................... 29
5.5.4 What the customer say they want is not always what they actually buy ... 30
5.5.5 Nothing new really .................................................................................. 30
6. Key Concepts ...................................................................................................... 31
6.1 Closed versus Open Innovation ...................................................................... 31
6.1.1 Closed Innovation ................................................................................... 32
6.1.2 Open Innovation ..................................................................................... 32
6.2 Open source ................................................................................................... 34
6.2.1 Open source software development ......................................................... 34
6.2.2 Rules of Open Source ............................................................................. 35
6.3 Living Lab ..................................................................................................... 35
6.3.1 Concept................................................................................................... 35
6.3.2 Why use a Living Lab ............................................................................. 36
7. Test Settings ........................................................................................................ 37
7.1 Arlanda Living Lab........................................................................................ 37
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 6 ~
7.1.1 Work Packages ....................................................................................... 37
7.1.2 The Innovation Process - Operational Level ............................................ 38
7.1.3 The Innovation Process - Functional Level .............................................. 39
7.1.4 The Innovation Process - Strategic Level ................................................ 39
7.2 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ....................................................................................... 39
7.2.1 System Explanation ................................................................................ 40
7.2.2 Log in ..................................................................................................... 40
7.2.3 Voting ..................................................................................................... 41
7.2.4 Iteration and commenting ........................................................................ 42
7.2.5 Ideas being developed ............................................................................. 42
7.2.6 Implemented ideas .................................................................................. 43
7.3 The stand ....................................................................................................... 43
7.3.1 Stand Position ......................................................................................... 43
7.3.2 Stand Design ........................................................................................... 43
8. Method ................................................................................................................ 45
8.1 Applying theoretical models .......................................................................... 45
8.1.1 Conducting a pilot study ......................................................................... 45
8.1.2 Applying the Marketing Process ............................................................. 45
8.1.3 Applying the 4P model ............................................................................ 45
8.2 The Pilot Test ................................................................................................ 47
8.2.1 Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 47
8.2.2 Approaches at the stand .......................................................................... 48
8.2.3 Flow observation method ........................................................................ 50
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 7 ~
8.3 Operationalisation .......................................................................................... 51
9. Collected data ...................................................................................................... 53
9.1 Living Lab ..................................................................................................... 53
9.1.1 Involvement from participating organisations .......................................... 53
9.1.2 Involvement of technology providers ...................................................... 53
9.1.3 Involvement of different companies and organisations ............................ 53
9.1.4 Openness and neutrality .......................................................................... 54
9.1.5 Involvement from public interests and government ................................. 54
9.1.6 User Involvement as a source of innovation and validation. .................... 54
9.1.7 Involvement from researchers ................................................................. 54
9.2 Communication towards employees ............................................................... 54
9.3 Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 55
9.4 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ....................................................................................... 56
9.4.1 Log in ..................................................................................................... 57
9.4.2 Voting ..................................................................................................... 57
9.4.3 Commenting ........................................................................................... 58
9.4.4 Submit an idea ........................................................................................ 59
9.4.5 Personal pages ........................................................................................ 59
9.4.6 Language ................................................................................................ 60
9.4.7 Different sorts of users ............................................................................ 61
9.4.8 Delays ..................................................................................................... 61
9.4.9 Cost per idea ........................................................................................... 61
9.5 Ideas in Arlanda IdeaTorrent.......................................................................... 62
9.5.1 Type of ideas .......................................................................................... 62
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 8 ~
9.5.2 Hour of submittal .................................................................................... 63
9.5.3 Submitting ideas on specific weekdays.................................................... 64
9.5.4 Duplicates ............................................................................................... 64
9.5.5 Ideas not submitted into Arlanda IdeaTorrent .......................................... 64
9.6 The stand ....................................................................................................... 65
9.6.1 Flow ....................................................................................................... 65
9.6.2 Approaches ............................................................................................. 66
9.6.3 Snowstorm .............................................................................................. 68
10. Comparing Arlanda IdeaTorrent with other systems .......................................... 69
10.1 Layout ......................................................................................................... 69
10.2 Idea presentation .......................................................................................... 71
10.3 Log in .......................................................................................................... 71
10.4 Idea submitting ............................................................................................ 71
10.5 Functionality ................................................................................................ 72
10.6 Feedback ..................................................................................................... 73
10.7 System summary.......................................................................................... 74
11. Analysis ............................................................................................................ 77
11.1 Organisational demands on a Living Lab ..................................................... 77
11.1.1 Demands of change ............................................................................... 77
11.1.2 Organisational goals .............................................................................. 77
11.1.3 Organisational challenges ...................................................................... 77
11.1.4 Communication ..................................................................................... 78
11.2 Analysing the questionnaire ......................................................................... 79
11.3 Analysing the system ................................................................................... 80
11.3.1 Problem and solution ............................................................................ 80
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 9 ~
11.3.2 Number of steps .................................................................................... 80
11.3.3 Feedback ............................................................................................... 81
11.3.4 Commenting and voting ........................................................................ 81
11.3.5 Dealing with user variation ................................................................... 82
11.3.6 Information within the system ............................................................... 82
11.3.7 Delays ................................................................................................... 83
11.3.8 Cost per idea ......................................................................................... 83
11.4 Analysing the stand ...................................................................................... 83
11.4.1 Flow ..................................................................................................... 83
11.4.2 Approaches ........................................................................................... 84
12. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 89
12.1 Open Innovation and Living Lab.................................................................. 89
12.2 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ..................................................................................... 89
12.3 The stand ..................................................................................................... 90
13. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 93
13.1 Organisational difficulties ............................................................................ 93
13.2 Communicational difficulties ....................................................................... 93
13.2.1 Fast lane and Investment lane ................................................................ 93
13.2.2 Potential future partners ........................................................................ 94
13.3 Arlanda IdeaTorrent ..................................................................................... 94
13.3.1 Problem and solution ............................................................................ 94
13.3.2 Feedback through e-mail ....................................................................... 94
13.3.3 Number of steps .................................................................................... 94
13.4 The stand ..................................................................................................... 95
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 10 ~
14. Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................ 97
15. References ......................................................................................................... 99
15.1 Literature sources ........................................................................................ 99
15.2 Internet sources .......................................................................................... 100
15.3 Image sources ............................................................................................ 101
Appendix 1 Backlog for Arlanda IdeaTorrent ........................................................ 103
Appendix 2 Brief Arlanda Living Lab monter ....................................................... 112
Appendix 3 Table of flow statistics........................................................................ 116
Appendix 4 Questionnaire ..................................................................................... 117
Appendix 5 Stand planning ................................................................................... 118
Appendix 6 Clothes and stand information ............................................................ 119
Appendix 7 Submitted ideas .................................................................................. 120
Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 121
Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 122
Appendix 8 The idea submittal procedure in AIT .................................................. 123
Appendix 9 Budget for Work Package 3 ALL ....................................................... 127
Appendix 10 Ideas submitted during specific days and periods .............................. 128
Appendix 11 Evaluation of systems ....................................................................... 129
Appendix 12 Graph displaying the flow at the stand .............................................. 130
Appendix 13 Additional statistical information from questionnaire ........................ 131
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 11 ~
Abbreviations
Arlanda Living Lab ALL
Arlanda IdeaTorrent AIT
Computer Sciences Corporation CSC
Luftfartsverket LFV
Open Source Initiative OSI
Research And Development R&D
SAS Ground Services SGS
Stockholm Arlanda Airport SAA
Stockholm School Of Economics SSE
Work Package WP
Figures Tables and Appendices
Figure Page Table Page Appendix Subject Page
1 14 1 29 1 System specification 105
2 16 2 52 2 Brief 113
3 20 3 57 3 Stand planning 117
4 22 4 58 4 Questionnaire 118
5 37 5 58 5 Flow 118
6 40 6 59 6 Clothes 120
7 40-41 7 59 7 Summary of ideas 121
8 41 8 60 8 Budget 124
9 42 9 61 9 Periods 128
10 44 10 62 10 Comparison 129
11 62 11 63 11 Flow display 130
12 74 12 64 12 Data questionnaire 131
13 74 13 65 13 Questionnaire data 132
14 76 14 66
15 76 15 66
16 77 16 68
17 78
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 12 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 13 ~
1. Introduction
In today’s society the demand is great on organisations to be innovative, and there is
also a demand to produce innovations at a fast pace. Some organisations have started
to examine new and different ways to accomplish this. Some organisations have come
to appreciate the users of their products or services in a way that could increase their
innovative ability. As John Donne said already in the 16th century, ‘No man is an
island in itself’ (Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII, 1624),
organisations are to a great extent starting to understand the potential of including
their users in the development process. These organisations are realizing that the users
of their products actually could be considered as experts, on for example using a
hover, car or computer software. In many organisations the development process has
been a task that included their R&D only. This is what has been called closed
innovation. Today some researchers and organisations claim that to be able to create a
faster innovation and development process, there is a demand to work towards a more
open innovation structure where users have a more important role in the development
process (Chesbrough & Appleyard, 2007).
So, why are we facing a more open innovation structure, or a change of paradigm as
researchers call it? Are we moving towards a more open innovation climate or is this
merely a result of what the era of information technology has in store? Catharina
Melian claims in her doctoral thesis that ‘The Internet continues to change the way
work is conducted, and it is protecting and ushering a new era of collaborative,
participatory and global approach towards innovation. Openness is the hallmark of
these new processes’ (Melian, 2007). This master thesis goes as far as testing if it is
possible to create an environment where the users are the ones performing the
innovation process, and where the involved organisations only take the part of
enabling users to interact, in a way that would not have been possible without
information technology.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 14 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 15 ~
2. Background
This chapter concerns the Arlanda Living Lab project, its involved partners, the
collaboration structure and describes the partner participation.
2.1 Conceptual Background
The heart and soul of many companies are the R&D departments where the next
generation of profit-earning products are produced every year, keeping competitors at
bay and defending market positions. Especially in high-tech industry, keeping abreast
with ongoing development is crucial for long term survival, and thereby managing
this functionality in the R&D department is essential. Traditionally these departments
turned inwards to come up with a new product, feature or service which was then
more or less forced upon the market in question, using marketing campaigns to create
a new demand. The customer was then allowed to buy the product but not invited any
further into company processes. Later on most companies have discovered the
advantages of involving customers or end users into the product development, by
letting them try out and evaluate products trough prototypes, beta testing and similar
product exposures.
Despite this not too recent progress today's globalised markets and advanced
technologies are still raising the R&D demand for new effective and time saving ways
of creating innovation. Any improvement in this matter could potentially create great
value (Shilling, 2008).
2.2 Project Background
In 2007 the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems, VINNOVA,
dedicated 11 MSEK to the purpose of trying to increase Swedish organisations' ability
to develop IT services together with end users. Some of this money ended up in the
project Arlanda Living Lab (www.vinnova.se, 2008-09-24). ALL began as a joint
venture between CSC, SGS and LFV with the common purpose of creating a better
Stockholm-Arlanda Airport, and explore the Living Lab concept by establishing a
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 16 ~
Living Lab at SAA. This was the start of the worlds first Living Lab at an airport, an
Airport Living Lab.
The collaborative structure of the project is displayed in figure 1. LFV is the owner of
SAA and SGS is one of the major organisations handling luggage and other services
SAA. CSC has SAS and the aero industry as a part of their consulting portfolio. All
parties therefore have incentives to participate in and take part in the funding of ALL.
CSC is, as the initiator of ALL, somewhat of a driving force in the project, and
employees from CSC handle the ALL project management and takes part in the
project administration. CSC participates in ALL with the main objective to acquire an
innovation business model, including the Living Lab concept, which can be
implemented at other airports and companies in general. CSC as a consulting firm
would benefit from being able to offer such a business model to their clients. LFV,
with its connection to the airport itself, together with SGS primarily handles the
project phases taking place at the airport. LFV participates in ALL hoping to gain
goodwill and positive attention to the SAA brand, and to profit later on from the
emerging innovations. SGS on the other hand hopes to gain a vent and feedback
system for its personnel.
Figure 1: The collaborative structure of the main participants in the ALL project.
The ALL project is separated into six WPs, each concerning one separate part of the
project process. The pilot study of this thesis will be conducted during November
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 17 ~
2008 as a part of WP 3 - Pilot Testing. Software adapted for user-created innovation,
Arlanda IdeaTorrent, will be trialled in a stand at SAA in terminal 5. Both AIT and
the stand will then be evaluated with respect to activity and functionality.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 18 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 19 ~
3. Purpose of thesis
This chapter concerns the purpose of the thesis and presents a short problem
formulation where the two focus areas are presented.
The purpose of the ALL project is to create a Living Lab at SAA. The given
assignment is to carry out a pilot study as a part of this project.
The purpose of this thesis is:
- To establish a testing environment for AIT at SAA.
- To evaluate the test environment and AIT.
- To leave recommendations for the continued ALL project.
3.1 Problem formulation
Figure 2: Hierarchical structure of the ALL project theoretical structure
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 20 ~
The subject being separated into several levels has resulted in two conceptual problem
formulations, which will be discussed later on but not be an object of specific study.
These problem formulations are:
To what extent can Open Innovation be achieved through a Living Lab structure
and/or the ALL structure?
To what extent has the Living Lab functionality been achieved in ALL?
3.1.1 Arlanda IdeaTorrent
The problem formulations regarding AIT are:
To what extent has AIT been a satisfactory system for managing user’s ideas?
To what extent has user activity been induced by AIT, in the form of:
- Comments per idea?
- Votes per idea?
To what extent can achieve ideas of scale by using AIT?
3.1.2 Stand
The problem formulations regarding the stand in Terminal 5 are:
To what extent has the stand been an effective way to attract users to AIT?
To what extent has the stand been an effective way to gather users’ ideas?
To what extent can ideas of scale be achieved by using a stand?
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 21 ~
4. Limitations of the study
This chapter concerns the directives given from the employer and collaborative
partners, as well as other limitations.
This thesis has limitations in time that are both given by outside directives and chosen
by the authors. Involved partners have given the assignment to conduct a pilot study
testing the AIT system in a real environment, as a part of the ALL project. The thesis
is therefore limited to the ALL project schedule. Directives have been given to carry
out the pilot test by using a stand and AIT, but there have been many opportunities to
affect the study, allowing deciding upon research methods and choosing incitements
and other ways to attract users.
The ALL project’s limited funding has limited the study in several ways. It has for
example not been able to use extensive marketing as a way of attracting users or to
choose freely where to place the stand inside the terminal.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 22 ~
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 23 ~
5. Theoretical models
This chapter concerns the theoretical aspect of the thesis. Here important theoretical
models are presented, and how they will help build a ground for the thesis. This part
also presents theory critique and why it is a part of the thesis.
5.1 Theoretical introduction
Melissa Schilling defines innovation “as the practical implementation of an idea into a
new device or process” (Schilling, 2008). In the case of ALL the purpose is to let
users generate ideas that can end up as innovations at SAA and as a result create a
better airport. To do so requires a forum for creativity. In a closed innovation system a
single person or a R&D department are in charge of the creativity of the organisation.
This makes the individual and organisational creativity important for the innovative
success of the organisation (Schilling, 2008).
The idea of a more open innovation process creates demands which might be new to
the involved organisations. Earlier studies have shown that a lot of companies
increase their sales as their amount of resources spent in R&D increases (Schilling,
2008). But, R&D activities can be of various kinds and the concepts dealt with in this
thesis are still evolving which makes it difficult to present numbers of efficiency at
this time.
The ALL project can also be said to be a way of improving the organisations
absorptive capacity, and a way for the involved organisations to receive information
otherwise inaccessible (Schilling, 2008). But as important as it might be to recieve
information from external sources, it is also important for this project to examine if it
is possible to create “ideas of scale”. For this innovation system to work there is a
monetary aspect to consider, and just as economies of scale are important for
companies, innovations of scale are important to ALL (Besanko, Braeutigam, 2005).
This is represented by figure 3.
An underlying thought is that AIT should generate more ideas that later become
innovations for a smaller amount of money than with an in-house R&D system. If this
is not possible then it would be a failure for the concept and system. To have a system
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 24 ~
that generates less successful innovations than the existing way to innovate at the
involved partners would be a failure (Kviselius et al. 2008).
Figure 3: Illustration of how an increased number of submitted problems/solutions could result
in an increased number of implemented innovations. (Kviselius et al. 2008)
5.2 The 4P model
In marketing the 4P model, consisting of four important factors of success, has turned
out as a successful tool. In this thesis the 4P's, Product, Price, Position and Promotion,
have been used when merging AIT and the stand to create a coherent concept
intended to optimize user interaction (Kotler, Keller, 2006).
5.2.1 Working the product
The product is central to what the seller has to offer the consumer, but it is not
everything. Surrounding and additional services might be just as important as the core
product. For example the product packaging or supporting IT solutions can be more
important to the consumer than the product itself. With this in mind one needs to
create an offer, a whole product that is as close as possible to the consumer demand
(Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 25 ~
5.2.2 Managing the price
The aspect of price can differ a lot between the core product and additional services or
products. Elements such as bonus systems, discounts or extra credits can affect the
price. The focus is the total sacrifice that the consumer will do compared to what the
seller has to offer. It is important to understand that organisations can apply to a large
variety of methods when pricing their products and therefore it is important for the
seller to have knowledge about the consumer needs and use (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).
5.2.3 Handling the place/position
To make the product and the offer easy to access for the consumer, sellers can use
different ways to compete with other competitors. In most businesses this creates a
demand for distribution channels for example via the Internet, transports etc. To make
changes in an organisations distribution channels or to change their position is
probably one of the hardest things to change, but a distribution working well can also
create additional value to the consumer. When an organisation chooses its position it
is also more or less choosing the consumer that they are interested in (Lekvall,
Wahlbin, 2001).
5.2.4 Managing promotion
Depending on what kind of market the seller is acting in there will be different ways
to promote the products. The 4P model suggests that promotion should be handled in
two different ways. The first through personal adaptation which for example can be
done at sales events, sales visits, via telephone etc. The other way to promote a
product is through mechanical adaptation where the consumers are applied to as a
collective. The seller uses TV commercials, advertisement in newspapers to name
some. The effect of Internet has been that organisations have the possibility to
combine personal and mechanical adaptation (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 26 ~
5.3 The Technology Adoption Life cycle
The technology adoption life cycle is a model for understanding a markets acceptance
of new products. One of the ALL project objectives is to achieve mainstream
acceptance of the ALL, making this model highly applicable, especially in the
introductory pilot phase. The model divides a product's potential adopters into five
groups according to their different adoption behaviours. These groups are different in
size and dominate different parts of the product's lifecycle, as shown in figure 4
(Moore, 2006).
Figure 4: Graph of Geoffrey Moore’s crossing the chasm model.
http://static.flickr.com/117/307081370_ea221b9eeb_o.png , 2008-12-12
5.3.1 Innovators
This group “pursues new technology products aggressively” (Moore, 2006). They
seek out the product themselves, often even before the official market launch, because
of their burning interest in the product's specific technology. They strongly value
getting to explore new and exciting technology and getting access to it before anyone
else. Moore points out the importance of winning or getting this group involved early
because they have the possibility to persuade others to follow (Moore, 2006).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 27 ~
5.3.2 Early adopters
Early adopters buy new products or services early in the product life cycle, not
because of interest in the technology but because of the competitive edge and benefits
this new product might give them. They relate new products or services into their
everyday life. This group represents the key for opening up any high-tech market
segment (Moore, 2006).
5.3.3 Early majority
The early majority is in one way similar to early adopters, but less interested in
technology and more focused on the practical aspects. The segment does not invest in
innovations before they can see well-established references that confirm these
benefits. Because of the size of the group they make represent a substantial profit and
growth potential (Moore, 2006).
5.3.4 Late majority
This group is big as the early majority but unlike the early majority, this group is
uncomfortable in the technical area. That makes the people in this group wait until
that new innovation has become an established standard and a working support
system around the product exist (Moore, 2006).
5.3.5 Laggards
This is a group of people that do not want anything to do with new technology. Their
reason for being uninterested might be for example economic or personal. Since they
are a rather small group compared to the others in the adoption life cycle, companies
tend to more or less ignore them (Moore, 2006).
5.4 The Marketing Process
Lekvall and Wahlbin describe what they call the Marketing process which includes
four different phases. These phases have been used to outline this thesis.
1. Phase of analysis – where the starting points and conditions have been identified
and analyzed.
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 28 ~
2. The Design phase – where the goals of the marketing are being decided and the
marketing program is being developed.
3. The phase of accomplishment – where what have been decided in the design
phase is planned in detail and executed.
4. The following up phase – where the results of the earlier phases are being
followed up and results can give input for the following work.
(Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2001)
5.5 Theoretical critique
When conducting a master thesis and deciding about what kind of approach and study
one wants to create there are different paths to choose between. Theoretical
applications can be used as well as different methods. The choice of theoretical
approach and method is important and affects the entire study.
This master thesis builds both on directives from the involved partners and the
suitability of theoretical approaches in the area of innovation management. It is also
important to understand that this study also is a part of research being conducted at
SSE, Uppsala University and within the involved partner organisations. As a result
not all models and theories are yet fully studied and tested. Given the situation it is
important to be critical and reflect around the concepts and the problems it could
bring.
ALL includes two fundamental concepts: Open innovation and Living Lab. From
these concepts the study is being carried through. Even though these concepts are
given as a directive, they might not be obvious and therefore needs some reflection.
5.5.1 Unsuitability of concepts
In this thesis an Open Innovation and Living Lab approach is being used. These
concepts have not been tested in this kind of environment before. Within different
businesses as well as in different firms there are separate ways regarding how the
work is managed but also how innovation is handled. There are differences regarding
factors such as competitive environment, task complexity and management style to
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 29 ~
mention some, which also means that innovation management styles could possibly
be more or less suitable for the organisation (Lawson, Samson. 2001).
Another problem with new aspects on innovation management such as Living Lab
and Open Innovation is that no one yet really knows what kind of organisational and
managerial demands it puts on the involved organisations. Research points out the
importance of both organisational and managerial attention within companies to
provide a satisfying innovation capability (Lawson, Samson. 2001).
5.5.2 Change of paradigm
Another critique is that several researchers in the area talks about a shift of paradigm
when discussing the effects of open innovation (Chesbrough, Appleyard, 2007). The
discussion about paradigm goes back to the book The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions by Tomas S. Kuhn from 1962. According to Kuhn, the term paradigm
instead of theory points out what can be rejected and be replaced during a scientific
revolution (Marc-Wogau, Bergström, Carlshamre, 2000).
“When a paradigm is established in a discipline it works as a general opinion and the
effect is more or less governing in an unaware manner for researchers. The paradigm
is experienced as obvious to active researchers” (Johansson, 2003). Kuhn also meant
that different paradigms cannot exist within the same discipline at the same time
(Johansson, 2003).
The term paradigm has through the years received another kind of explanation than
the one that Kuhn himself originally meant. This means that it today is being used
sometimes only to explain a major change within a research discipline (Johansson,
2003).
5.5.3 User focus
Some organisations consider it to be risky to put a large amount of their investments
in the hands of their customers or users. They mean that the user or customer do not
always know what they want and there is a risk in relying too much in them as a
result. One can also discuss whether an organisation could or even should try to
achieve total customer focus in their innovation process. Some parts of an innovation
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 30 ~
process might be to complex for at least some users to handle and as a result also
make a decision (Schilling, 2008).
A problem is the ways that users are supposed to interact with to be able to affect their
situation. If the channel to interact is not easy to reach, this interaction will be difficult
and the result will not be as expected (Abasca, Azevedo, 2007).
5.5.4 What the customers say they want is not always what they
actually buy
When companies put money and effort in conducting a market research, the result
could vary depending on the achieved level of objectivity within the survey. As
Lekvall and Wahlbin describe it, market information is the kind of facts that are
relying on objective foundations for marketing decisions (Lekvall, Wahlbin, 2006).
Uno Alfredeen claimed that, before a customer actually buys a product or service, one
can never really know the real potential (Malmström, 2001). In the case of ALL there
is a potential difficulty to measure the objectivity of the results since users are
allowed to promote their own ideas or innovations. But on the other hand this could
create a kind of “buzz” that for example was really important during the promotion of
Apples iPhone.
5.5.5 Nothing new really
To say that the world today is moving towards a more open innovation process can be
discussed. Some researchers would say that this is nothing new and that it is a focus
that has been of interest during a long time. Researchers talk about that organisations
always have tried to listen to the user or consumer because otherwise they would not
be able to sell their product or service. Claiming that the era of Internet has changed
this is only partially true. The channels for interaction might have changed, but does
that necessary result in different or/and better results? (Schilling, 2008).
Uppsala University Your Ideas - The Airport of Tomorrow
~ 31 ~
6. Key Concepts
This chapter concerns and explains the key concepts of Open Innovation, Open
Source and Living Lab.
6.1 Closed versus Open Innovation
Definition: “Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of
knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use
of innovation, respectively. [This paradigm] assumes that firms can and should use
external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as
they look to advance their technology” (Chesbrough 2006).
Table 1: Differences regarding closed vs. open Innovation
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_innovation) 2008-09-30
Closed innovation Principles Open innovation Principles