Three living labs in Denmark: Challenges with co-design and implementation of health IT

Tariq Osman Andersen
Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Anne Marie Kanstrup
Department of Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

Signe Louise Yndigegn
IT University Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: Proceedings from The 16th Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics 2018, Aalborg, Denmark August 28–29, 2018

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 151:1, s. 1-6

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2018-08-24

ISBN: 978-91-7685-213-2

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


Living labs are increasingly used as an approach for facilitating innovation and testing emerging information technologies. In this paper we analyse three large-scale technology design projects in Danish healthcare where co-design and implementation activities were organised in living labs. We describe some of the critical challenges that we experienced from transitioning technology prototypes and co-design activities into becoming part of the daily lives of patients, citizens and healthcare practitioners. The main challenges relate to creating and sustaining new work practices, scaling the number of participants, and facilitating the transition between everyday life and living lab behaviour.


Living lab, Co-design, Implementation, Health information technology, Innovation.


[1] World Health Organization. 2005. Connecting for Health: Global Vision, Local Insight. Report for the World Summit on the Information Society. WHO.

[2] N. Carroll and I. Richardson. 2016. Aligning Healthcare Innovation and Software Requirements through Design Thinking. SEHS’16.

[3] Kjeldskov, J. et al. Is it worth the hassle? Exploring the added value of evaluating the usability of context-aware mobile systems in the field. Mobile HCI’04, Springer, (2004), 61-73.

[4] Jensen, S. et al. 2015. Clinical simulation: A method for development and evaluation of clinical information systems. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 54: 65-76.

[5] Aanestad, M. et al. 2017. Participatory Continuing Design: “Living with” Videoconferencing in Rehabilitation. In A.M. Kanstrup et al. (Eds.) Participatory Design & Health Information Technology. IOS Press.

[6] Kyng M. Bridging the Gap Between Politics and Techniques: On the next practices of participatory design. Scandinavian Journal of Informaiton Systems. 2010; 22(1):5.

[7] Bygholm, A. & Kanstrup, A. M. 2017. This Is not Participatory Design – A. Critical Analysis of Eight Living Laboratories. In A.M. Kanstrup et al. (Eds.) Participatory Design & Health Information Technology. IOS Press.

[8] Ogonowski, C. et al. 2013. Designing for the Living Room: Long-Term Users Involvement in a Living Lab. Proc CHI’13, ACM Press: 1539-1548.

[9] Følstad, A. 2008. Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: a literature review. eJov: The electronic journal for Virtual Organization & Networks.

[10] Rogers, E. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition. Free Press.

[11] von Hippel. 2001. Perspective: User toolkits for innovation. The journal of Product Innovation Management, 18: 247-257.

[12] Sanders, E. and Stappers, P. J. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4, 1: 5-18.

[13] Bannon, L.J. & Ehn, P. Design: design matters in Participatory Design. Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, Simonsen, J. & Robertson, T. (eds.). Routledge (2012), 37-63.

[14] Ponce de Leon, M. et al. 2006. Creating a distributed mobile networking testbed environment – through the Living Lab approach. 2nd International Conference on Testbeds and Research Infrastructures for the Development of Networks and Communities, IEEE, 1-5.

[15] Ishmael, J. et al. 2010. Deploying rural community wireless mesh networks. IEEE Internet Computing, 12, 4, 22- 29.

[16] Abowd, G.D. et al. 2002. The Aware Home: A living laboratory for technologies for successful aging. Proceedings of the AAAI-02 Workshop “Automation as Caregiver”, AAI Technical Report WS-02-02.

[17] Intille, S.S. et al. 2005. A Living Laboratory for the Design and Evaluation of Ubiquitous Computing Technologies. CHI’05 Extended Abstracts, ACM Press, 1941-1944.

[18] Kanstrup, A.M. et al. 2010. A living laboratory exploring mobile support for everyday life with diabetes. Wireless personal communications, 53, 3, 395-408.

[19] Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. et al. A Milieu for Innovation – Defining Living Labs. 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symosium, New York, 2009.

[20] Erikson, M.; Niitamo, V.P. & Kulkki, S. State-of-the-art in utilizing Livng Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation – a European approach. Luleå: Center for Distance-spanning Technology. Luleå University of Technology, Sweeden, 2005.

[21] Yndigegn, S. & Aakjær, M. K. Living lab: Format for rehearsing a new (service) practice. In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference 2017, 111-119.

[22] Andersen, T. et al. 2017. From Prototype to Products: Making participatory design of mHealth commercially viable. In A.M. Kanstrup et al. (Eds.) Participatory Design & Health Information Technology. IOS Press.

[23] Kanstrup, A. M. 2017. Living in the Lab: an analysis of the work in eight living laboratories set up in care homes for technology innovation. CoDesign, 13,1: 49-64.

[24] Bostrom, R. et al. 1977. MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Tehcnial Perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1, 3.

Citeringar i Crossref