This is a CTP of initiative: Living Labs - Living Lab Eindhoven (Netherlands)
This critical turning point (CTP4) is about the presentation of the coalition agreement of the city council of Eindhoven in May 2014 (see: Eindhoven, 2014 in reference list). This moment was very important for the development of the living lab approach in Eindhoven since it was the first formally approved policy document that mentioned the living lab approach as an important approach for the city. Robert Elbrink further explains that it was an important political document that was very much appreciated by many civil servants like himself. It provided ‘the hooks’ that civil servants need to develop plans in the line of thinking and working that was being developed since quite some time around ICT, data and design thinking. Theseare all important building blocks of the smart society and living lab approach. As the head of the strategy department of the city of Eindhoven he explained that: “This actually strengthens a movement that is already going on, for a longer period of time. And in this movement experiments and innovations are the central elements an as well as the question of how you bring this closer and closer to the people who could benefit from it. And then (..) a coalition agreement like this helps. It mobilizes attention, money time, prioritization, capacity… and I believe that you simply need that in our world. If there is no political commitment you can try to develop some things bottom-up (..) but eventually, if you want to have money or active cooperation from the government for it, it should be a political priority.”
The coalition agreement promotes design thinking, focus on ICT and data, focuses on engaging citizens, experimentation and smart city. It also mentions the word ‘living (lab)’ 3 times:
Additionally the coalition agreement explicitly mentions that there should be room for making mistakes when you work in the experimental living-lab approach that it promotes: “(..) This requires civil servants who are enabled to take responsibility for a final product and they should feel ownership for it, and who are in a position that they can make mistakes, as long as they learn from it (Eindhoven 2014, p.8).”
The following reasons can explain how this CTP came about:
The coalition agreement was much appreciated by the civil servants who strongly believed in the living lab approach: it provided political backing for their projects and ideas. Even if the living lab approach was already being implemented in practice, it was not defined in any formal policy document (Ruijsink, 2016).
This critical turning point is co-produced by:
The civil servants have some room to influence the councillors: They can make use of the Smart City discourse: they use their opportunities to discuss the importance of a societally engaged understanding of the smart city concept with the councillors. Before elections civil servants typically produce ideas, which are building blocks and those should address the contemporary ‘hot topics’ and potential new topics for the city. Robert Elbrink explained that he and his colleagues did us this opportunity to promote the idea of: “smart city Eindhoven style. So, not only technology, but also design thinking, putting the human being in a central position, inclusive society as the basis… only then you are acting smart.”
But, Robert Elbrink further explained that eventually you need people, politicians who believe in it. “You need people who can make sure that such a thing lands in a coalition agreement, there simply need to be people who believe in it. As a civil servant you can offer as much as you like, but eventually there are just people who say: ‘I believe in it, it fits, it makes sense, it makes sense in our cooperation, we will write it down.’” Robert Elbrink believes that amongst others two councillors in Eindhoven were of particular importance. Mary-Ann Schreurs (D66), aldermen of Innovation and Design, Sustainability and Culture, and also vice mayor and mentioned under content. And Staf Depla (PvdA), aldermen of Economic Affairs. Both of them strongly believe in the opportunities that the living lab approach has to offer and they are capable of making connections with other potentially relevant partners. Additionally the current (April, 2016) mayor of Eindhoven, Rob van Gijzel, is critical, as Robert Elbrink expressed it: “the personification of disruptive innovation, doing things differently and forcing people to think. He is super important for Eindhoven … He keeps all of sharp, he makes us think and not take things for granted (..) and he is an amazing figure head (..) showing what Eindhoven can do (..) in a very exciting area with many interesting experiments.”
Companies are also important actors. Robert Elbrink gave the example of Peter Wennink, the leader of ASML (ASML is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of chip-making equipment/ machines) who increasingly shows societal commitment. He creates possibilities for young starting entrepreneurs to develop their businesses. This is an important contribution in the creation of employment opportunities, but also it is important for creating an experimental living lab climate in the city. Robert Elbrink continues that you see more and more prominent people in the tech sector that promote such an environment by, in one way or another providing resources for it. Those people come from various sectors such as the private sector (e.g. ASML, Philips, etc.), research and education (e.g. the Technical University of Eindhoven) and also from events such as the Dutch Design Week.
The Brainport Foundation and his working organisation Brainport Development is an important actor in Eindhoven, also for living labs. The mayor of Eindhoven is the chair of this foundation that also has representatives of companies, entrepreneurs, the Technical University of Eindhoven, the Fontys University of applied sciences of Eindhoven, etc.. They talk about ideas for living labs and in this context it functions as a platform to bring potential partners together. As Robert Elbrink explained: “You have NXP and TNO here, all partners like that and is the beauty of the Brainport cooperation. All the expertise is brought together in an open innovation cooperation model and you can do wonderful things together if you have some much knowledge and expertise. And we are obviously in a very exceptional region in which we can do really exciting things.”
The Brainport and the living lab approach work in Eindhoven because there is a long tradition of cooperation in Eindhoven and that is important. As Robert Elbrink illustrated: “it really fits in a tradition that we have for a long time. It is also my conviction: you do not build a living lab in two or three years, it should… it should actually fit in a tradition, otherwise it remains a strange thing with existential issues. That is a nice idea, they did it there, so we can copy it … But then it will never … It should be really lived through, it should fit, it should make sense.”
So it is critical that companies, entrepreneurs and knowledge institutions are taken seriously by politics and the other way around. Events like the Dutch Design Week can only be so successful because it is also political accommodated. Robert Elbrink explained that the Design Week and the Design community and Brainport imply a level of organisation that makes it relatively easy for the municipality to act as a ‘spider in the web’. He illustrated it with an example: “When, in 2008 Lehman Brothers fell, our mayor managed to talk with full representation of top-level of all the companies in Eindhoven to discuss ‘what does this man, what will we do (..), how can we help each other (..)” This resulted among others in agreements that companies would send their people to the public funded knowledge institutes on a temporary basis, those were talented and highly educated people for whom the companies temporarily did not have work and it resulted in relevant knowledge sharing.
Robert Elbrink concludes that: “Such mechanisms [of cooperation across sectors] are crucial to make it happen. You should know each other, be able to find each other and award each other things. A Living Lab in which everybody is just eager to maximise his or her own profit and benefit is doomed to fail, I guess.”
The related events that were important for this critical turning point are:
Robert Elbrink explained that various events showed that: “the municipality, businesses and universities began to find each other and said we have to make one program, one development and innovation program and one economic program to ensure that this will never happen again, that our economy today not only depends on Philips and we create programs that create more employment, that strengthens the city's structure, etc.” He continues to explain that the challenges of the 90’s were important, as well as the ‘knowledge district’ project that was developed: “And actually the 90's provided a real basis for the Brainport Cooperation and it was important that the ‘knowledge district’ project focused on ICT. I think that we developed ourselves now to ‘the’ high-tech cluster area of ??the Netherlands. And that movement was also about innovation. And the Living Lab, has now just gone into that movement, because it obviously fits very much into that movement of economic restructuring, boosting innovation. (..) We also realized that is actually a pity that technology companies make the most wonderful things here, but that they are then tested outside Eindhoven. So we ask ourselves ‘how can we ensure that we as a city are also attractive as a testing ground for innovations?’ And as long as I work here you always see hooks in coalition programs that state: we think innovation is important and residents should benefit from it. And it is the most prominent in the final coalition agreement which described more than two years ago that Eindhoven must transform itself into a smart society, it may also fail, the city is a living lab and we should also spend money on that. So that is basically as clear as it can get.” Additionally, Robert Elbrink stressed the relevance of design thinking that is also materialised in the Dutch Design Week and in the fact that the municipality employs a designer at the Strategy-department to improve effectiveness of municipal policies and execution.
The fundamental basics of Eindhoven’s approach of focusing on Technology and Design and Knowledge (TDK) and on innovation and experimentation did not involve much contestation. That does not mean that the journey to come to the coalition agreement is conflict free and also still today there is criticism on the approach, mainly expressed by the political opposition. Besides, the implementation of the underlying principles of the coalition agreement includes tensions and conflicts.
The coalition agreement promotes ownership among residents and professional actors in the city and experimentation in the way they work together and on finding solutions together. As a consequence it does not simply provide list with identified problems and solutions and some elements in the coalition agreement remain rather abstract. Robert Elbrink mentioned that not everybody finds it easy to work with that.
Additionally the political opposition will of course always criticize elements of the coalition’s policy that is a ‘normal’ political game. Whenever things go wrong in the city it is an easy joke for the opposition to say ‘you are successful, things are going wrong, mistakes are being made, just like you suggested in the coalition agreement.’
Despite the contestation around the coalition agreements there are issues when putting its principles and values into practice. There are different stakes at play. Robert Elbrink explains: “The commercial stakes can be conflicting with our societal values.” The city of Eindhoven has developed a clear principle that data that is not personal and that is being developed in public spaces, is also publicly available, so it promotes real open data. Robert Elbrink illustrates that: “this results in interesting discussions (..). There are companies that say: ‘I collect the data and I will sell it, or analyse it and offer services to people’. So we [the city of Eindhoven] have developed a few principles for dealing with data.” Another example is the continuous development of the fibre infrastructure there are also challenging differences in the viewpoints of the companies and the municipality.
But in general in the political debate the living lab approach is one of the least contested topics. There is much more debate about issues such as the swimming pool and the ice skating lane that are still owned by the municipality at the time of this interview (April, 2016): where there is discussion if they should be transformed, or privatised. That type of discussion easily receives more attention since it is much more concrete than a living lab. In conclusion, nobody is really against it, but it is somehow competing with other priorities.
Of course, the municipality is changing and living labs are illustrations and front running activities that embody that change. As Robert Elbrink further clarifies: “The world is changing. And the way people look at their government and the way people are enabled, e.g. through technology, to organize many more things by themselves and for that they do not immediately need a municipality or government or what so ever… Yes of course you see that it develops at a fast pace. People find each other more easily, in all kinds of platforms they exchange goods things. Well that gives tension. (..) for example with Uber and the taxi industry, it happens when two worlds collide. And you see, at a smaller scale, that something similar is happening at the council. And if you do not respond to that, then you become at some point in time obsolete.”
As becomes clear from the related events section it was rather a logical sequence of events that this critical turning point would appear. The coalition agreement was not a surprise for many civil servants including Robert Elbrink.
First, traditionally and historically the city focused on technology and innovation and this gets later summarized by Eindhoven’s principles: Technology, Design and Knowledge, TDK. With the unemployment in the 90’s, caused by DAF’s bankruptcy and Philips restructuring the city needed to reinvent itself. Brainport is a spin-off and also the design thinking becomes more heavily embedded in the cities DNA as is exemplified by the successful Dutch Design Week and the employment of the municipal designer. The tradition of collaboration with various stakeholders, the availability of and investment in human resources (university, companies and entrepreneurs with expertise) and technical resources (fibre infrastructure, testing facilities in universities, companies, researcher institutions) and the political climate also adds to creating a breeding ground for the living-lab approach. In conclusion, Robert Elbrink acknowledges that the coalition agreement was not a surprise (also see contestation), but it was brave: “it was a logical step to make this coalition agreement, however, it was also brave. (..) You put yourself in a vulnerable position if you write down ‘we allow mistakes, things can fail, and we are okay with that’. And it is also rather abstract and not everybody immediately understands what it means.” And this brave coalition agreement really provided a breeding ground for the various living lab initiatives in Eindhoven, so new ones can be initiated and existing ones can be developed and flourish more. It was anticipated on but also it was very much hoped by a number of civil servants that it would happen like this.
The coalition agreement was critical for moving the living lab approach forward. But it should also be realised that it is in the end a product that is made by people and plans can be made, but people are the ones making change real. Robert Elbrink explained: “It is eventually about people who have an idea and they then find one or two others; they go for it, they put their passion into it and they mobilise others. This results in trust, in a movement and then… afterwards, they would say: ‘well, we designed and planned this very well.’ But often it was not planned or designed beforehand, or at least it went differently than how it was planned.”
Robert Elbrink considers it interesting to frame a living lab as a social innovation since it suggest that there is an important human factor to it, which is concerned with the type of energy that people put in a process. “For example the Living Lab Stratumseind [see CTP2]. Without Tinus Kanters there was no Living Lab Stratumseind, I am convinced about that.” Robert Elbrink refers to research from Gabriël van der Brink from the University of Tilburg who talks about ‘best-persons’. Where we often look for best practices, it is more useful to look for ‘best-persons’, who can help to shape and mobilize change. Robert Elbrink adds that is always about people: “It sounds so obvious, but as policymakers it seems that we could sometimes almost forget the importance of the human factor when we think about what the world should look like”
As a municipality it is critical that we learn how to deal with initiatives in the society, with people in the city that want to initiate projects. It is also important for Rob van Gijzel, Eindhoven’s mayor (at the time of the interview; April 2016) who has been the president of a think tank of the Association of Dutch Municipalities around this topic. And this line of thinking is very relevant in the context of facilitating innovation within living labs. Robert Elbrink adds that in such processes it is important to create spaces in which things can happen since it can also be about: “synchronicity, things that simply happen.”
Concluding Robert Elbrink stressed how important design thinking is for Eindhoven. The design thinking complements the living-lab and innovation minded approach by its approach to dealing with issues: “You're going to try something, you think it's a good idea, you look at how it works in practice, you observe it and analyse it and you think, well, it's not good and then you throw it away and then you do the next round. So you do prototyping, a way of working with iterations. And that fits.” To materialize this embracement of design thinking the municipality took a remarkable decision: “As the highlight we have just taken a municipal designer in service since June last year. So really just a designer who is now a civil servant and who has the mission to anchor design thinking in our organization as a way of working. It should inspire us of how we can deal with the complex issues in society.” Robert Elbrink concludes that this brings new and positive energy in the team, something that is very important.
References
Eindhoven (2014), Coalitieakkoord 2014-2018, Expeditie Eindhoven, Iedereen mee, PvdA, D66, SP, Groen Links, Mei 2014. Accessed at 29th of July 2016 via: http://www.eindhoven.nl/web/file?uuid=646cb57b-ab59-4b87-9937-422aaf02240e&owner=e4ce69a8-6570-4b06-9919-2009e2927cdd&contentid=76499
DDW.nl (2016), Dutch Design Week, Accessed at 29th of July 2016 via: http://www.ddw.nl/en/page/about-ddw
Brainport.nl (2016) www.brainport.nl Accessed at 29th of July 2016
Ruijsink, S. (2016) TRANSIT Case Study Report European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) – case study Eindhoven, Deliverable 4.2, TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
