Recommendations for new innovation services based on Living Labs

On the basis of the AgriLink Living Lab experiences and monitoring and evaluation, the lessons and learning arising from the Living Labs are summarised below.

Strengths
Useful in situations where there is a ‘pressing concern’, some enthusiasm for change, but uncertainty about how to proceed.
The open-ended nature of Living Lab is appropriate for situations experienced as complex and contested.
Longer duration of Living Lab (compared to e.g. workshops) allows for trust, relationships and insights into the situation to develop.
Energy and enthusiasm is derived from a mandate and/or invitation from stakeholders.
Flexible to changes in understanding and needs of stakeholders and can be adapted to new conditions/situations as learning develops.
Can provide space and time for new ideas and practices to be explored in collaboration with others.
Skilled facilitator, monitoring processes and organisational support.
Weaknesses
Are not a panacea for all problems and situations.
May not suit particular cultural and social contexts with limited experience of collaboration.
May be inappropriate for mostly technical discussions which can be progressed using other less intensive and less open-ended processes.
Resource intensive, particularly early on when trust and relationships are being developed and the potential focus for a LL is being determined.
Can be experienced as ‘slow’ extended processes. Time requirements on participants (e.g. farmers) can limit participation.
May be experienced as threat to existing relationships, particularly where commercial interests are at stake.
Are not guaranteed to provide pre-determined results within a given time frame. Many outcomes will be emergent.
Open-ended and emergent nature of Living Lab can be difficult for organisations to commit to funding and participating in Living Lab.

There was broad agreement across the AgriLink Living Labs that they were positive, successful initiatives that achieved, to a greater or lesser degree, the development of new innovations in agriculture advisory services. But there were also very real difficulties and problems for the Living Labs, particularly in the earlier stages in deciding on focus, finding ways of engaging with and being trusted by diverse stakeholders and managing inter-organisational differences.

Despite, and in some cases because of, these difficulties, the Living Labs have led to considerable learning about the Living Lab approach itself, stakeholder engagement practices, roles, techniques and skills. In several Living Labs, this has led to changes in the work and cultural norms of the advisory organisations and farming groups, and a new understanding of more collaborative forms of advisory service development. These shifts offer considerable scope for new agricultural practices to be explored and adapted to particular contexts.

In addition, the Living Labs facilitated wider understanding, development and, in some cases, use of particular technologies to improve farming methods and approaches. But not all innovations are technologically orientated. In several of the Living Labs, enabling information and knowledge development within stakeholder networks were the focus of the innovation and key to the success of new outputs and practices with financial, social and environmental benefits.

While the Living Labs led to increased opportunities for more sustainable agriculture, determining ‘final’ outcomes were tempered by the relatively short timescale of the Living Labs and often ‘indirect’ effects, such as increased confidence to try new ideas, which are less tangible and may occur outside the Living Lab boundary or research timeline.

Efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness