## 5 Concluding Remarks  
This study aims to develop a conceptual framework that can be used to analyze the real-use environment of NCPs and derive design implications for living labs. This study provides significant implications in several ways. First, this study extends the preceding research on the living labs-as-a-methodology into the context of verification of test methods and certification criteria for NCPs. The process of developing, verifying, and finally enacting new standards in existing certification schemes usually takes several years, including a considerable amount of research and discussion about the scope, test methods, and threshold criteria of the standards. On the other side, due to the time lag between technology development and standard establishment, newly developed innovative products such as NCPs cannot be certified at the desired time, and in turn, the product launch is inevitably delayed. This study provides valuable clues that the existing verification methods for test items and qualification criteria can be extended to use living labs as a new methodology. In particular, this study shows that living labs can be effectively used for those new products that have never existed before and thus the consideration of real-use environment is relatively important. The analytic tools developed in this study effectively link one of the core properties of living labs, i.e., realism, with the necessity in the area of the certification, i.e., understanding of real-use environment, for the new products such as NCPs. Next, this study elaborates the entire procedure of using living labs for the verification, which can be an important overall picture for practitioners. Given the lack of existing knowledge, without a full picture of step-by-step procedures and methods, it will be very difficult for practitioners to actually use living labs as the methodology for the verification purposes. The detailed explanations of this study about the framework for analyzing the actual use environment, deriving the living lab components, and determining their priorities, are useful guidelines that practitioners can follow on their own. This study also has theoretical implications. The three different contexts of product use have been conceptually developed from a different angle, compared to prior research. Previous studies mainly focused on a user-centric context [39]. Specifically, they subdivided the user context in various forms, such as what the user is doing (i.e., task context), when and where they are (i.e., spatial-temporal context), what their surroundings are (i.e., environmental context), and what their mental state is (mental context). In contrast, the contexts defined in this study are product-centric concepts, such as how and by whom the product is used (i.e., user context), with which devices or systems the product is used together (i.e., technological context), and in what natural and artificial environment the product is used (i.e., physical context). The advantage of this new approach is that it improves a product-centered understanding of situations, conditions, or environments, which in this study, allows the analysis of real-use environment of a product. Users are still considered important, but classified as one of the real-use environments of a product, not as the main entity. Likewise, this study has expanded the existing context-related research into the product side. It is anticipated that the product-centric classification of the context can be further elaborated by future research. Moreover, the four dimensions and corresponding questionnaire developed to determine the priority among the living lab components also have theoretical contributions. Specifically, the dimensions can be further developed as constructs and used in empirical studies. Future research can define the four dimensions (i.e., function, performance, optimization, and relevance) as constructs that are measured by the three corresponding questions as reflective indicators.