Use 'Print preview' to check the number of pages and printer settings.
Print functionality varies between browsers.
Printable page generated Thursday, 25 April 2024, 2:58 PM
Session 7 Living with a Living Lab: some dos and don’ts
Session 7 Living with a Living Lab: some dos and don’ts
We are now getting to some key lessons we have learned about Living Labs in agricultural settings. First, watch the following video for the headline lessons before exploring these lessons more fully in the rest of the session.
Transcript
EGIL PETTER STRATE:
In this session, we'll look at some key do's and don'ts in running Living Labs. This is not a list of different things to do or not to do, like a recipe as the context and need for a Living Lab can vary so much. They are but more a set of common factors or ingredients that we found important for a good outcome.
The first factor is to be realistic in whether a Living Lab is needed at all and who should decide the answer. If a Living Lab is thought to be needed, it is important to get the trust and a mandate from those who want to be involved.
Next it is necessary to be flexible and be able to adapt the roadmap of the Living Lab to the stakeholders, their preferences, and behaviours. That is why having a named facilitator and also a named monitor with the appropriate knowledge and skills working together is helpful in reviewing and checking what has happened and needs to happen next.
Lastly, keep in mind, what was the original aim? And don't start to like the process more than the goal. Good luck.
In previous sessions, I have shown you how we thought about what the nature of Living Labs for innovative agricultural services should look like. I have explained how we have used design thinking, systems thinking and reflexive monitoring to treat the Living Lab as systemic inquiry where we consider the whole process to be a learning system.
This means we were not just concerned with the actual ‘solution’ but the processes that were used to try and develop a solution or solutions. But the question remains as to whether Living Labs are suitable for the task of creating innovative agricultural advisory services and, if so, how can they be made as useful as possible?
In this session, I will try to answer the second question by looking at the challenges, the strengths and weaknesses, and the dos and don’ts that we uncovered in the AgriLink Living Labs before looking at the first question in the final session.
Reflective Activity 14
If you have got this far in the course, you must be intrigued by the notion of using Living Labs to create innovative agricultural advisory services, but from what you have learned so far, what would you think would be the biggest challenges when setting up a Living Lab? Write your answers in the text box below.
Answer
Several challenges were identified, and although linked, none were common to all the Living Labs. But some of the biggest challenges were essentially who pays for this to happen, how do we get the right people to run it and how do you keep all parties on board? There are others which I will come to later, but for now I will look at these three challenges.
First, paying for a Living Lab. Living Labs represent a considerable investment in time and resources, so the difficulty of creating a viable business model for a Living Lab emerged as a key challenge for several Living Labs. Part of this difficulty is centred on developing a business model for a Living Lab as a one-off, time-limited process. The very essence of the Living Lab model and the conditions required for their use does not lend itself to long termism implied by a business model and business planning. It is also difficult for a more informal, multi-party ‘organisation’ such as a Living Lab to have an operating model and structure that can operate a business model. A business model where users such as farmers incurred a direct payment charge for a Living Lab might alter the ethos of the Living Lab and become a ‘service’ with expectation of certain results and outputs, narrowing the scope and effectiveness of Living Labs as more open processes.
Second, getting the right people to run it. Even where Living Labs are supported, the role of facilitators and monitors is critical to the work of a Living Lab and would require sufficient funding alongside funds for prototyping and testing as a minimum. While it is feasible to have dedicated people in a funded research programme such as AgriLink, the question of how Living Lab personnel could be funded in a more commercial context or ones working parent or co-projects also raises questions over roles and responsibilities.
Third, keeping all parties on board. Having to be flexible and adaptable to the situation and diverse stakeholders’ needs proved to be challenging for several Living Labs trying to maintain efficiency and effectiveness. For example, in one Living Lab additional efforts were required to interpret technical and research material and language for farmers. Another Living Lab noted that even with highly motivated stakeholders, existing working cultures and practices and lack of familiarity with stakeholder centred initiatives led to a reluctance to engage in co-creative processes.
Linked to the above challenges, all of the Living Lab experienced greater or lesser difficulties in determining the focus and associated stakeholder ‘demand’ or interest for proposed innovations. This proved particularly challenging for some Living Labs where demand for a service based on cooperation between stakeholders was lower than expected. In some cases, this was due to conflicts with individual commercial interests – the Living Lab could undermine the advisor’s role and (economic) relationship with farmers – and in others because there was limited experience of working collaboratively.
Having read that answer, you may feel that Living Labs are too much hassle, but there are always successes and failures in new or different approaches. The strengths and weakness of any Living Lab cannot be absolute characteristics since either will vary according to the specific context and arrangements of the Living Lab when implemented.
In this respect, the number and type of strengths of a Living Lab is only defined in practice.
Now go to the next section.
Strengths of Living Labs
An important strength of the AgriLink Living Labs have been their flexibility – the ability to be open to, accommodate, respond to and withstand changes. This manifested in different ways, for example being able to work on several innovation support tools at once within a Living Lab. This provided a diverse setting for learning and the potential for multiple insights. Other examples include the flexibility to bring in experts from other fields to respond to an identified need which was not originally envisaged at the outset of the Living Lab.
Closely linked to, and having some overlap with flexibility, adaptability emerged as a clear strength of the Living Labs. Defined as a change in something in response to new conditions or being able to be used in new conditions, contexts or for new uses, adaptation took many forms in the Living Labs in relation to setting, language, timing, pace, focus, facilitation, tone, perspectives, needs, outputs and so on. Being able to use the experiences of one Living Lab in a different context and different regions (within and between countries) has also demonstrated the adaptable nature of the Living lab model.
Arising from flexibility and adaptability, trust was the defining aspect that determined the success or otherwise of the Living Labs. There were several instances where flexibility and adaptations of the Living Lab led to better relationships and trust. While it is not a strength of the Living Lab process per se, because it may not always exist, if trust is engendered and prevails, then it is a significant strength and contributes greatly to the ability of the Living Lab to achieve its aims and/or cope with adaptations and setbacks.
Additionally, that the Living Labs exist in real-life settings, gives rise to insights about the complexities and realities of stakeholders’ activities, concerns and issues regarding advisory provision as well as a reality-check for possible new innovations. Even if sometimes brokered through intermediaries, closer working relationships with user communities also helped to improve the quality and speed of feedback on possible innovations. Nevertheless, some Living Labs had experienced ‘gatekeeping’ issues where some actors had prevented direct interaction with farming networks and communities, possibly due to commercial interests.
Strengths arising from the quality of personnel were also significant. All of the Living Lab accounts attest to the importance of the facilitator. In some cases, this is a researcher with understanding of the area, issues and networks and connections to begin and sustain the Living Lab. One of the Living Labs was co-facilitated by a local leader within the farming cooperative, which added to the sense of trust, although this cannot always be assumed for any Living Lab. In another case, a local political representative endorsed the Living Lab, ‘facilitating’ its acceptance by local stakeholders.
Weaknesses of Living Labs
The ephemeral nature of the Living Lab – it is not an object or technology that can be shown – means that some Living Labs found it difficult to make it very visible to the stakeholders and engender sufficient support to create and own the process.
The Living Lab approach also requires significant social skills and understanding of processes involving people, including active listening, mediation and facilitation. In the AgriLink Living Labs, these skill sets were not common. Typically, agricultural researchers, advisors and other stakeholders were trained in, and far more comfortable, focusing on technical issues, rather than managing and facilitating expansive and sometimes contested discussions.
By their nature, Living Labs are not prescriptive and rely on discussion, engagement and negotiation to shape focus, direction and activities in any particular context. This can be resource intensive (people, time, money) and lead to uncertainty about the viability of the Living Lab, especially in the early stages. The lack of a blueprint, flexible working patterns and inappropriateness of pre-specifying outcomes can be difficult for financing organisations to understand, support and incorporate into business model planning.
Linked to this, enthusiasm for Living Labs is reliant on a ‘pressing issue’ of sufficient concern for the Living Lab participants to convene and continue to meet. Where the central ‘focus’ of the Living Lab is vague or deemed by stakeholders to be irrelevant then motivation for the Living Lab can diminish rapidly. Several of the AgriLink Living Labs experienced this to a greater or lesser degree and recognised that the early focus of the Living Lab (guided by the researchers) was misjudged.
Surprises
Surprises is perhaps an unusual heading, but is entirely appropriate to the open-ended, learning-based nature of Living. Documenting surprises offered further insights into the expectations of the AgriLink researchers, how events developed, and both the positive and negative aspects of the Living Lab approach.
Perhaps the most revealing surprise to us is that ‘being in control’ of the Living Lab was not always necessary or desirable. In several Living Labs, the early stages were experienced by the researchers as ‘unfocused’ and ‘unprofessional’ compared to the usual and expected format of meetings and planning processes. However, once the instinctive desire to control and guide was reduced, and the researchers really began to listen, they were able to learn from the stakeholders and understand the meaning of co-creation, leading to an improved output of the Living Lab. Similar surprises were noted regarding unexpected learning about the complexity of the situation and the contested nature of the issues and diversity of views about possible innovation strategies.
The question of who controls interventions and advisory processes also led to an assumption by researchers in one Living Lab that the Living Lab itself would be perceived as a threat by the main advisors in the area. However, this assumption proved to be unfounded. Even so, other Living Labs did experience surprise at resistance by stakeholders who were not interested in co-developing ideas and prototypes.
Dos and Don’ts of Living Labs
Having set out the strengths, weaknesses and surprises that we encountered in our Living Labs, we were able to distil what we have learned into a list of ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ for creating a successful Living Lab.
The following ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ are not a prescriptive list nor are they set out in a preferred order.
The aim is to offer insights into several do’s and don’ts that may be relevant at the same time in any Living Lab context and may require coordinated action and responses.
Dos
Be realistic
A Living Lab is not the ‘magic’ ingredient or tool for more sustainable farm advisory services that can be applied without consideration. A review of the theory, practices and experiences of the AgriLink Living Lab provides insights into their role, use, advantages and limitations, enabling conditions and resources required. Applying this to other situations requires a realistic assessment of what might be achievable in any given context considering existing needs, skills, resources and capacities of likely participants, including organisers.
Build trusting relationships
Establishing and building trusting relationships before and during the Living Lab among organising teams and also participants is essential to developing a meaningful goal and longer term viability of the Living Lab. This requires investment of time, resources and skilled listening. In existing situations, established trust and good working relations can help speed progress, but a Living Lab can represent a marked shift in approach and a wider focus than just technical aspects. Understanding relationships, power dynamics and roles within the organisations involved is always an early priority and sets the foundation for later work. Clarification of (changing) roles is also important to establish and manage expectations for all.
Identify a meaningful and pressing issue of concern
Make sure that the topic is interesting and relevant for the stakeholders and the end-users as this is essential to maintaining energy in the Living Lab. This can take time to determine and requires openness to ideas and change as discussions continue with stakeholders. Practical, ‘concrete’ proposals which relate to more immediate issues are more likely to be engaged with and generate enthusiasm for any viable response or solution. Beginning with a simple problem that stakeholders have identified can also be a successful strategy that allows, once trust and engagement is established, expansion of the problem boundary to encompass more complex elements of the situation.
Seek and establish a mandate
This is an easily overlooked, but a very important part of ‘stepping into’ another’s situation. Asking for and receiving a clear mandate to become involved in a situation is good ethical practice, promotes reflexivity and helps develop trust and understanding.
Be prepared to limit focus and boundaries
Be ready to narrow down the scale of the Living Lab, its focus and scope. While this may mean less can be done, it can make it more likely to succeed. Lowering your ambitions may diminish your ‘energy to move’, but it can also be important to provide focus, making it possible to implement your idea in practice.
Be inclusive of stakeholders with complementary skills
This relates to before, during and at the end of Living Lab processes. Invitations to participate in a Living Lab should be linked to the nature of the situation, likely focus and nature of possible outcomes. Too narrow a set of stakeholders may mean limited energy, scope, insight and skills-base for possible changes. Too large a set may lead to dissonance and dissipate ideas and focus. The stakeholder contingent may also change as the Living Lab develops and new people are invited, or others leave, affecting the skills-base. Being inclusive also means being aware of stakeholder preferences. Some will prefer engaging just in feedback or providing occasional advice.
Engage skilled and knowledgeable facilitators
This is an essential element of a successful Living Lab. It is not possible to provide details of the ideal facilitator since the ideal depends on the needs of stakeholders in a particular context. However, openness to ideas, adaptiveness and good knowledge of context, stakeholder relationships and specific issues were particularly valued in AgriLink and helped to build trust in the process.
Adapt, learn and be open
Being flexible, learning about and adapting to the context, situation and concerns of stakeholders means that Living Labs can be ‘comfortable’ spaces for stakeholders and promotes confidence in joining and sharing and progressing issues. Be aware of assumptions about what is needed and the right way to do it.
Monitor and reflect to keep track of progress and ideas
From the outset and as the Living Lab develops, keep track of everything that happens, and use these data and your experiences to constantly re-evaluate your approach. Consider developing a structured monitoring and evaluation plan to do so.
Assess resources and capacities
As part of the realities of running a Living Lab, resources and capacities must be assessed from the outset and thereafter on a continual basis. Living Labs are time-consuming and often become a complex process involving multiple stakeholders, which requires careful management of people and financial resources and capacities.
Communicate
This takes place on many levels. Honest and open communication between Living Lab facilitators and monitors is essential. Being able to talk openly about issues and possible resolutions can address problems before they become major obstacles and also helps to maintain creativity, avoiding ‘treadmill’ thinking and practice. While it is important for participants to contribute ideas and suggestions, communication also requires active listening with the intention of learning.
Develop skills and practices
Living Labs are innovations themselves and have particular requirements in terms of time, resources, skills and practices. While some aspects, such as facilitation, may be generic skills, the particular cross-cutting concerns of a Living Lab may require new sets of skills and training requirements for individuals or groups. Regular reviews and support from other Living Labs and training sessions (as in the case of AgriLink) can be helpful in sharing problems and ideas as well as learning new skills and practices.
Coordinate the process
It is a truism that stakeholder-based processes do not run themselves and Living Labs are no exception. Coordination is needed at many levels to ensure the Living Lab develops on a solid foundation of stakeholder support and trust. Use of design thinking as well as an understanding of the enabling conditions coupled with a robust monitoring and evaluation process will contribute to coordination and, ultimately, learning arising from and within the Living Lab.
Don’ts
Many of the dos can be inverted to provide a corresponding list of ‘don’ts’. To avoid undue repetition, this exercise is not repeated here.
However, a few additional elements are worth noting since they highlight other aspects not readily captured by inverting the ‘dos’.
Use confusing or abstract language
Language is an important framing device and requires careful attention. Be aware that the term Living Lab may have very limited appeal and can be confusing to non-academic audiences. It can be off-putting – who wants to live in a lab? – and in some cases may be interpreted as condescending where a person’s working life is reduced to the basis of experiment or described as a ‘lab’. Avoiding jargon and being ‘in tune’ with stakeholders’ language will help communication and trust.
Fear mistakes or changing focus
Do not be afraid to make mistakes or of changing the aim and focus of the Living Lab. Stakeholders will leave/arrive as the focus emerges and their priorities dictate. Being open about mistakes or changes and developing a learning culture can help build trust and good relationships.
Be afraid to take control/guide the process
As Living Labs are open processes, there is always the risk that they lose direction and enthusiasm if they pursue certain pathways leading to dead ends. The facilitator and monitor are able to act to bring the Living Lab back on track with guidance and take control as needed. However, this must be done with transparency to the stakeholders.
Do it alone
Based on the above, Living Labs are best suited to more complex situations where there is a problem situation and some stakeholder enthusiasm for progressing improvement. These conditions alone convey the significant task of convening and running a Living Lab. Adding in a monitoring and evaluation process adds to the workload. While it is possible to run a ‘small’ or ‘light’ Living Lab as an individual person, the experience for all involved will be improved and insights are likely to be significantly greater if a Living Lab is run and assessed by a team. Extending this, a group of Living Labs can learn a great deal from each other.
Assume Living Labs are always the answer
Living Labs can be effective in the right context and conditions, but like any process of more open inquiry and decision-making, it is not a panacea or an easy way to resolve a situation. Deciding to use a Living Lab requires some form of mandate from possible participants, awareness of the method and its application as well as insights into the types of situations in which it can be deployed effectively with the skills and resources available. It may be appropriate not to embark on a Living Lab or to end it early.
Reflective Activity 15
What did you find most surprising from this list of dos and don’ts? Write your answer in the box below.
Answer
I did not find any of the dos surprising, but in contrast the most surprising don’t for me was don’t talk about Living Labs to the stakeholders!
Having spent so much time putting this course on Living Labs together and writing out Living Lab so many times, I initially felt disheartened by that finding.
But the message from the AgriLink Living Labs was wider than that. Researchers and others devise approaches and use terms which make sense within that context, but the language being used needs to be modified or translated when used in other contexts to make it more relevant and understandable to other practitioners, unless or until that original language becomes more widely accepted.
It also highlights that the facilitation (and monitoring roles) are also one of knowledge brokering, of taking findings from elsewhere and synthesising them for the end users(s) in exactly the way that agricultural advisors do all the time. What may be different are the processes involved in that synthesis.
Summary of Session 7
In this session, I have summarised the main findings from the AgriLink Living Labs in terms of strengths, weaknesses and surprises we discovered in applying the Living Lab approach using the frameworks of design thinking, systems thinking and reflexive monitoring. This merging of research ideas and their use in practice has enabled us to draw up a list of dos and don’ts to consider when setting up and running a Living Lab.
On balance, the list of weaknesses and don’ts seem to outweigh the strengths and dos but in reality, much was learned by all involved and ‘success’, however measured, was very much dependent on the positive outlook people took. The process was confusing and frustrating at times but also very rewarding.
