erent contexts and that can help provide solutions for societal issues, such as caring for an ageing population, obesity, and unemployment. Different methodologies will be of interest to different organizations: for example, businesses planning to deliver tailored services may wish to use service-design methodologies such as those used by the University of Lapland and Laurea University of Applied Sciences, whereas local governments may wish to consider methodologies such as LUPI to help co-design public spaces and at the same time support local businesses. Further experiments using these methodologies would help to determine different applications.
One of the most interesting results of the project has been the creation of a Master’s course called "Smart Cities: Designing with Citizens". Launched by the Design for All Foundation and BAU School of Design in Barcelona, this course aims to ensure that the smart cities of the future will be co-created with their citizens.
Finally, the project has also helped build a taxonomy of methodologies: a majority of the collated methods implicate the user at a high level at the ideation/conception phases, but gaps remain in the latter phases, such as prototyping.
The IDeALL consortium invites anyone interested in user-driven, design-led innovation to explore the user-centred business portal and provide feedback on how this can be improved to better meet their requirements: www.usercentredbusiness.com
Aragall, F., & Montaña, J. 2012. Universal Design: The HUMBLES Method for User-Centred Business. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Curley, M., & Salemin, B. 2013. Open Innovation 2.0: A New Paradigm. EU Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group (OISPG).
Design for All Foundation. 2013. International Awards 2013 (Brochure).
European Commission. 2013. Fact and Figures about the EU´s Small and Medium Enterprise (SME). May 1, 2014:
Gournville, J. T. 2005. The Curse of Innovation: Why Innovative New Products Fail. Marketing Science Insitute Working Paper Series, No. 05-117.
Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. Living Labs as Open-Innovation Networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 6–11.
Mulder, I. 2012. Living Labbing the Rotterdam Way: Co-Creation as an Enabler for Urban Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9): 39–43.
Quintavalle, R. 2014. Food Doesn't Grow in Silicon Valleys. Stanford Social Innovation Review (Blog). May 1, 2014:
Serra, A. 2013. Tres problemas sobre los laboratorios ciudadanos. Una mirada desde Europa (Three Problems Concerning Living Labs: A European Point of View). Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad, 8(23): 283-298.
Steinfeld, E. & Maisel, J. 2012. Universal Design: Creating Inclusive Environments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Thomson, M., & Koskinen, T. 2012. Design for Growth and Prosperity: Report and Recommendations of the European Design Leadership Board. Helsinki: DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission.
Vérilhac, I., Pallot, M., & Aragall, F. 2012. IDeALL: Exploring the Way to Integrate Design for All Within Living Labs. Proceedings of the 18th International ICE Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation, 1-8.
Keywords: 3H, co-creation, design, design for all, health, HUMBLES, ICT, innovation, living labs, LUPI, methodologies, service prototyping, services, social care, urban design, user-centred approaches