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.