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.