Future of Labs Final Report

2024

GATHERING REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE NEXT 10 YEARS OF LABS

ABOUT THE FUTURE OF LABS

Convened and sponsored by Action Lab and Social Innovation Canada

Sponsored and supported by Suncor Energy Foundation.

Research and Process Design for Future of Labs Stewarded by:

Ben Weinlick, Anthony Bourque, Paige Reeves, and Rebecca Rubuliak of Action Lab, Diane Roussin of Winnipeg Boldness Project, Geraldine Cahill of Social Innovation Canada

About Action Lab

Action Lab is a social enterprise of Skills Society, a not-for-profit disability rights and service organisation in Edmonton that has always been committed to innovation in supporting marginalised community members to find belonging and lead rich, inclusive lives.

Action Lab is part of a social innovation ecosystem in Canada that is engaging in fresh ways of tackling some of the most complex challenges we’re all facing in society today. The Action Lab space was designed for hosting diverse collectives who need to tap into the deep knowledge in their community, look at issues from unique perspectives and generate strategic possibilities. The Action Lab experience promotes creativity, offers tools to help tap into collective wisdom and helps people and systems to prototype proposed solutions.

and UpSocial, Mark Cabaj of Here2There Consulting, Patrick Dubé of Transition Bridges Project and Rhizome group.

About Social Innovation Canada

Social Innovation Canada (SI Canada) is working to address complex challenges of national relevance and create transformational change.

We support social innovators and ecosystem builders, connecting them to resources, opportunities, and each other. We lead national interventions with place and identity-based communities to address complex issues. We work to reduce systemic barriers and unlock resources to enable the implementation and scaling of solutions.

FUTURE OF LABS

Future of Labs (FOL) brought together an impressive group of trailblazers and experienced innovators who steward and design collective problem solving processes and share a common goal of creating more impactful practices. The gathering was a catalyst for shaping the next ten years of Lab approaches - looking deeply at what’s been working, not working, and collectively visioning next practices for the field. The resulting work supports more people and systems to get better at understanding, connecting and working with some of the most wicked challenges our world is facing today.

There are several unique ways knowledge was gathered and mobilized before, during, and after FOL. Diverse Lab practitioners from across Canada and beyond were invited to participate in pre-gathering interviews, focus groups, and surveys that contributed to the Primer, the design of workshops, and the production of pregathering learning reports from the field. Thoughtfully designed workshops supported rich dialogue. Post gathering, this report with pathways, signals, and principles Lab explorers and funders of Labs might consider when designing and enabling robust, equitable and impactful Lab processes as well as three podcasts have been produced. These knowledge artefacts will help local and national practitioners and innovators around the world strengthen their practices as well as help funders and enablers of Labs to better evaluate Lab proposals.

THE FUTURE OF THE FUTURE OF LABS

In the hopefully not too distant future, we hope there will be support for lab stewards to be able to come together at least yearly to share learning and get better at the practice of labs. We need systems change practices of all kinds in the turbulent world of today and the creative experimentation and reframing of complex problems that labs are so good at, are needed more than ever. If we don’t have labs into the future, there will be a whole lot of innovating and change around surface problems that might not really be getting at the core challenges of our times. We hope the field continues to evolve and is bold. Labs are needed. The strong relationships and creative collisions of lab leaders will ensure labs continue to be relevant and sensitive to the complexities of the future.

You can view the FOL reports, podcasts, and other knowledge products at our webpage here: www.actionlab.ca/future-of-labs-gathering

SHOUT OUTS AND THANK YOU!

→ First, many thanks to the FOL delegates, many of whom travelled great distances and took time away from loved ones to generously share their time, wisdom, and experiences to help shape the next generation of Social Innovation Labs.

→ Thank you to core conveners and sponsors Social Innovation Canada, Action Lab, and Suncor Energy Foundation for resources to make the FOL possible.

→ Thank you to Community Foundations of Canada and University of Waterloo WISIR for contributing to bursaries to support equity in attendance.

→ Thank you to Edmonton Community Foundation, Hamilton Community Foundation, and Oakville Community Foundation, for making knowledge sharing more inclusive, grounded in oral traditions and accessible through sponsoring a 3 part podcast series related to the FOL.

→ Thank you to the contributors to this Report who helped synthesise and write:

Ben Weinlick

Alex Ryan Paige Reeves Keren Perla Marlieke Kieboom

Rebecca Rubuliak Mark Cabaj

→ Thank you to Aleeya Velji, Alex Ryan, Ben Weinlick, Darcy Riddell, Diane Roussin, Geraldine Cahill, Keren Perla, Mark Cabaj, Marlieke Kieboom, Patrick Dube, and Tim Draimin for sharing their expertise to facilitate the 5 research conversations at the FOL gathering on Cortes Island.

THE FUTURE OF LABS FIRST YEAR DELEGATES

Aleeya Velji

Alex Ryan

Alison Cretney

Amanda Hachey

Andre Fortin

Andrea Nemtin

Annand Ollivere

Annelies Tjebbes

Anthony Bourque

Ben Weinlick

Bonnie Veness

Brent Wellsch

Carla Stephenson

Carolyn Townsend

Cassandra Litke

Wyatt

Cheryl Rose

Chris Chang-Yen

Phillips

Darcy Riddell

Diane Roussin

Geraldine Cahill

Gordon Chan

Heather Remacle

Huzaifa Faisal

Ione Ardaiz

Jill Andres

Jimmy PaquetCormier

Julia Dalman

Katie Davey

Keren Perla

Kerri Klein

Kirsten Wright

Lewis Muirhead

Lindsay Cole

Lisa Gibson

Mark Cabaj

Marlieke Kieboom

Maryam Mohiuddin

Ahmed

Meghan Durieux

Melanie Thomas

Miquel de Paladella

Monica Pohlman

Nicholas Scott

Paige Reeves

Patrick Dube

Paz (Pachy) OrellanaFitzgerald

Penelope Jean Stiles

Pieter de Vos

Rebecca McSheffery

Rebecca Rubuliak

Rhea Kachroo

Roya Damabi

Sam Rye

Sarah Brooks

Sarah Lamb

Sean Geobey

Sonja Miokovic

Sophia Ikura

Stacy Barter

Tim Draimin

Tonya Surman

Tracey Robertson

Virginie Zingraff

The Future of Labs delegates gathered on the deck at Hollyhock on Cortes Island, BC.

THE FUTURE OF LABS ORIGIN STORY

The seeds for FOL came from a community-based nonprofit Lab in western Canada called Action Lab. For the last 15 years Action Lab has led community think tanks and Labs around complex social challenges related to the inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities, behaviour change science in anti-racism interventions, and humanizing social service case management systems.

Like how most system change efforts begin, the idea for FOL began when leaders at Action Lab noticed a signal emerging in the Lab space. Questions were bubbling up as to whether Lab practices were a thing of the past or an approach worth evolving. The Action Lab leaders started to talk amongst themselves and then reached out to see if other colleagues were seeing the same signal. Overwhelmingly, experienced colleagues in public, private, and community Lab spaces were noticing the same signals, and that sparked a desire to come together to explore and make some offerings to the field. A diverse and experienced Canadian convener team then came together to steward FOL.

We recognize the FOL is one type of Lab practitioner gathering and that there are other important gatherings and research explorations happening elsewhere that focus on nuanced aspects of Lab and systems change practice. Our unique offering was to gather a diverse cross-section of experienced Lab leaders and tap into honest and generative wisdom around what could be better. We hope this complements the work of emerging leaders and supports greater coherence on the roots of Lab ideas, philosophies, and practices.

Why Future of Labs? And Why Now?

All sectors are under immense stress - more leaders are recognizing the significant challenges society is facing due to transition, polarisation, and the current trend of a snapback to solutionism in tackling complex challenges. This approach of oversimplified solutionism leads to short-sighted, quick fixes that overshadow the need for real systemic change.

Over the past 15 to 20 years, Social Innovation Labs, Innovation Labs, Impact Labs, Social Labs, and Living Labs were launched by many trailblazing changemakers in the Canadian landscape. These included

federal and provincial-led Labs, as well as many community-based social Labs. In discussions with Lab practitioners across Canada, we are finding that many mature Labs and Lab practitioners are finding themselves in a period of reflection. While Lab approaches have shown promise in some ways for helping collectives to tackle tough challenges, there are gaps and inconsistencies in methods, practices, and impact.

Lastly, we also noticed a signal that funders, enablers, and supporters of Labs and Lab-like processes need better sense-making tools and evaluation of criteria to assess Lab proposals and their potential impact.

Lastly, we also noticed a signal that funders, enablers, and supporters of Labs and Lab-like processes need better sense-making tools and evaluation criteria to assess Lab proposals and their potential impact. In light of these signals, the conveners of the FOL identified five key conversations we felt were important for the Lab field to have and (try to) converge on to help inform and build a next generation of more effective Labs practice. These serve as an entry point to learn from Lab practitioners through FOL - the purpose not being to reach consensus, but rather to establish coherence. The Broader Arc of Future of Labs

→ An itch for a new iteration

→ A Primer to frame key conversations

→ The gathering itself

→ A Report to harvest our insights

→ A new canvas for the field of Labs

FUTURE

OF LABS LEADERSHIP

AND CONTRIBUTORS

Convenors, Research and Process Design

ANTHONY BOURQUE, ACTION LAB

Anthony is the Director of Research and Social Innovation of Action Lab, a social innovation consultancy and social enterprise of Skills Society Anthony has a diverse background in construction, fitness, playwork, social innovation and humancentred design. After working abroad in South-East Asia, Anthony completed graduate research focused on understanding perceptions of risk in unstructured play to understand better the obstacles families face in their communities. He brings his qualitative research and facilitation experience together with playful methods like Lego Serious Play. Anthony consults, designs, facilitates, and leads workshops & innovation Labs around complex challenges.

BEN WEINLICK, ACTION LAB

Ben is the Executive Director of Skills Society and was instrumental in developing their social enterprise systems change consultancy called Action Lab. Skills Society is one of the largest and longest serving disability rights and service organisations in Edmonton, Alberta within Treaty 6 territory. Skills Society has a long history of creating innovative social service culture that support marginalised communities to thrive. Ben has been deeply involved in systems change work through stewarding think tanks and social innovation for the last 15 years. He is also the founder of a creativity and innovation consultancy network called Think Jar Collective, and co-founder of a tangible social innovation called MyCompass Planning that is scaling across North America. Ben is passionate about helping people, organisations and systems to get better at navigating complex challenges together.

DIANE ROUSSIN, WINNIPEG BOLDNESS PROJECT

Diane Roussin is a dedicated community leader and a proud member of the Skownan First Nation. Diane is the project director of The Winnipeg Boldness Project, an initiative that seeks to create large-scale, systemic change for children and families in Winnipeg’s Point Douglas neighborhood. The project uses tools and processes from social innovation to develop community-driven solutions to create better outcomes for the neighborhood’s residents.

GERALDINE CAHILL, SOCIAL INNOVATION CANADA

Geraldine Cahill joined Social Innovation Canada (SI Canada) in early 2023 as Director of Engagement. At SI Canada she leads Social Innovation Labs involving multi-stakeholder facilitation, stewardship and project design in areas of complex need. She is also guiding the strategic communication and engagement direction for SI Canada, building on her past experience with Social Innovation Generation (SiG). She is the founding director of UpSocial Canada, inspired and informed by UpSocial Global in Barcelona. Geraldine has also designed a social innovation curriculum for undergraduate university students and nonprofit professionals. In 2017, she co-authored Social Innovation Generation: Fostering a Canadian Ecosystem for Systems Change, with SiG colleague, Kelsey Spitz.

MARK CABAJ, HERE2THERE CONSULTING

Mark is President of the consulting company From Here to There and an Associate of Tamarack - An Institute for Community Engagement. Mark has firsthand knowledge of using evaluation as a policy maker, philanthropist, and activist, and has played a big role in promoting the merging practice of developmental evaluation in Canada. Back in Canada, Mark was the Coordinator of the Waterloo Region's Opportunities 2000 project (1997-2000), an initiative that won provincial, national and international awards for its multi-sector approach to poverty reduction. He served briefly as the Executive Director of the Canadian Community Economic Development Network (CCEDNet) in 2001. From 2002 to 2011, he was Vice President of the Tamarack Institute and the Executive Director of Vibrant Communities Canada.

PAIGE REEVES, ACTION LAB

Paige is the Director of Research and Social Innovation of Action Lab, a social innovation consultancy and social enterprise of Skills Society. Paige consults, designs, facilitates and leads workshops & innovation Labs around complex challenges. She brings deep knowledge of participatory research methodologies, and has diverse experiences with facilitating human-centred design approaches. Paige has a unique perspective in being in both the academy and grounded in community based research for systems change. Her graduate research centers around ways of fostering communities of belonging. Paige has also been mentored in developmental evaluation and

applies this in longer term Labs she stewards to help collectives ensure learning and outcomes are helpful and relevant. Paige is passionate about making real systems change happen for people and communities that need it.

PATRICK DUBÉ, TRANSITION BRIDGES PROJECT AND RHIZOME GROUP

Patrick is a passionate advocate for social and environmental innovation, a father of two, a musical explorer, a learning horseback archer, and a lifelong entrepreneur with a rich background in research and technology. Holding a master's degree in anthropology and having pursued Ph.D. studies in complexity science at the University of Montreal/CNRS Strasbourg, he co-founded an A.I. startup (1999-2004) aimed at reducing hospital misdiagnoses. His career has since spanned various roles, leveraging open innovation to support a diverse array of initiatives from 2006 to 2012. Between 2010 and 2016, Patrick served as codirector of research and innovation at the Society for Arts and Technology [SAT], later co-founding a service design studio that has been instrumental in fostering innovation practices within institutions, organizations, and communities. As the executive director of the Social Innovation House in Montreal until 2023, he co-designed and supported various open and Social Innovation Labs, focusing on social justice, community resilience, regenerative practices, and systemic change through regulatory and financial innovation. Since 2023, Patrick has contributed as a costeward of the Transition Bridges project and joined the Rhizome Creative Capital group, furthering his commitment to social and environmental innovation. He also serves on the board of the Quebec Network for Social Innovation, demonstrating his unwavering dedication to advancing the practice.

REBECCA RUBULIAK, ACTION LAB

Rebecca is the Director of Continuous Improvement and Innovation at Skills Society, a large disability rights and services organization, where she co-stewards innovative projects, organizational development, and learning practices to affect change towards supporting equity and inclusion in community. Part of her role is co-stewarding workshops and social innovation processes out of Action Lab, a social enterprise of Skills Society. Rebecca is motivated by a curiosity about how we cultivate communities where everyone is valued and belongs. Rebecca’s graduate research engaged

participatory methods to explore alongside children experiencing disability how we might better support inclusion and deeper belonging.

Facilitators and Advisors

ALEEYA VELJI, CANADIAN MORTGAGE HOUSING CORPORATION

Aleeya was a co-steward of the Edmonton Shift Lab, and built a public sector innovation Lab within the Ministry of Education in Alberta. Currently, in her role at CMHC she has supported, as a lead designer, several Solutions Labs focusing on finance and housing. Aleeya is also currently supporting an Indigenous Innovation Lab in Post Secondary Institutions originally as the lead designer and now as an Advisor to the design firm Coeuraj. She continues to support Lab work through advisory roles in Montreal, and with design and facilitation roles for ongoing Lab work with various organizations across Canada.

ALEX RYAN, SYNTHETIKOS

Alex is the co-founder and CEO of Synthetikos Inc. where he is currently consulting as the lead architect and facilitator for the Future of Hockey Lab. As the Senior Vice President of MaRS Partner Solutions Group he led partner solutions, helping government and corporate partners accelerate the adoption of innovation in their organizations, markets and cities. At MaRS Alex oversaw 150 innovation projects, Labs, challenges and missions, including scaling MyStartr and the Engineering Change Lab from ideation through to national programs impacting thousands of lives. His writing on smart cities, data governance, policy innovation, social innovation, systemic design, and complex systems science has been published by the World Economic Forum, Fast Company, Axios, Stanford Social Innovation Review, and Complexity. Alex is also co-founder of Alberta CoLab, the first provincial government innovation Lab in Canada where he led over 100 Lab projects across every ministry of government. He is an executive-in-residence at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management.

DARCY RIDDELL, CONSULTANT, RAD NETWORK (RESTORE, ASSERT, DEFEND)

Darcy has worked in cauldrons of social change for 25 years - on forest campaigns conserving the Great Bear Rainforest, leading strategic learning

at McConnell Foundation, training leaders,designing and facilitating multi-sector change initiatives, funding First Nations stewardship at Makeway, advancing environmental policy change, and founding collaborative networks centring sustainability, justice, and systems innovation. She works with RAD Network on Indigenous-led conservation finance and nature-based solutions, and as a consultant. Darcy has a Ph.D. in Social Innovation from UWaterloo focused on leadership and impact in complex multiscaled systems, and reads tarot cards in service of collective transformation. She sits on the board of Social Innovation Canada and Hollyhock. A fifth generation British Columbian, she lives with her two children in əsəlilwətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), Xʷməθkwəyəm (Musqueam), & Sḵwx̱wú7meshsi (Squamish) territories, where she’s a grateful student of nature and wisdom traditions.

KEREN PERLA, ENERGY FUTURES LAB

Keren is President of Perla Inc. and strategic advisor and innovation architect with the Energy Futures Lab leading netzero research initiatives and innovation challenges that bring together government, investors, industry, entrepreneurs, Right and Title Holder and communities to collaborate on energy transitions. Keren’s career spans over two decades focused on public sector innovation working in multiple policy domains, from energy development to circular economies to health innovation and everything in between. She is Co-founder of the Alberta CoLab –the first public sector Social Innovation Lab to launch at a provincial level - where she led and oversaw over 150 projects (in Alberta, Canada and with the UNDP) to successfully introduce new strategies and approaches to solve messy challenges through the use of disciplines such as systemic design, foresight, and design facilitation.

MARLIEKE KIEBOOM, BRITISH COLUMBIA PUBLIC SERVICE

Marlieke is a public sector leader, author, and speaker in social innovation, service design, and systemic strategy across academia, civil society organizations, and government. Her work reflects a deep commitment to developing service and systemic design processes and capabilities across silos and different world views. Marlieke was at the forefront of the Labs movement in Europe in the early 2010’s, where she co-convened the first international social Labs gathering (Lab of Labs). She developed various Lab methodologies,

designed and led social Labs in collaboration with municipalities, philanthropists and community activists and encouraged critical thinking about Labs by writing various publications (ie. Lab Matters, 2014, Lab Craft, 2015). Currently, Marlieke leads a service design chapter in the Ministry of Citizens' Services in the British Columbia Public Service. Her dedication to open, creative, and equitable futures drives her passion for meaningful collaboration.

TIM DRAIMIN, SOCIAL INNOVATION CANADA

Tim Draimin is chair and a founding board member of SIC. He is senior fellow at Community Foundations of Canada (CFC). From 2008-2017, Tim was the Executive Director of Social Innovation Generation (SiG), a partnership founded by McConnell Family Foundation, MaRS, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN), and the University of Waterloo. SiG focused on strengthening Canada’s enabling ecosystem and public policies for deploying social innovation for system change. Tim is a frequent advisor to government, non-profits and business. He is a board member of Trico Foundation and past board member of Social Innovation Exchange (SIX), Centre for Social Innovation (CSI), Green Economy Canada, and Partnership Brokers Association (PBA). He was a member of Grand Challenges Canada’s scientific advisory board. Tim convened the Canadian Task Force on Social Finance, which proposed a seven-point agenda for mobilizing private capital for public good.

Important!

What the report doesn’t quite capture is the joy, trust, support, and deep connections shared amongst everyone that attended the Future of Labs. Delegates noticed a maturing in the field in Canada, less competition and a sense of real enthusiastic support for each other even when there was disagreement. This is promising for field building into the future and was maybe the best part of the future of labs.

THE PRIMER

The Primer, downloadable from the FOL website1, is a scrappy synthesis of the history of Labs, trends in the field, data from a survey and focus groups with diverse Lab practitioners, a collection of inspiring examples of Lab practice, and some provocations to consider. The Primer served as grounding knowledge and context for the FOL gathering that took place in May 2024 and supports wider knowledge sharing around what Labs are, when they might be helpful, and what principles of good Labs look like. Since the FOL gathering on the island and in writing this final report, we continue to find that the Primer has very clear history and knowledge to review on the what, why and how of many diverse types of labs.

THIS REPORT - THE 2024 FOL GATHERING REPORT

This report provides summaries of each of the five conversations held at the FOL gathering. Each summary includes a brief description of the question(s) explored and how conversations were facilitated, as well as a synthesis of the raw data captured from participants, summarising what was heard and initial impressions. Facilitators of the conversations were consulted on the synthesis summaries. At the end of the report we discuss potential working conclusions, recommendations, next steps, and questions for the field to consider.

In striving to not have to reinvent the wheel each time labs are explored, we hope the Primer will support funders of labs, lab practitioners and curious explorers interested in learning about the niche of labs for some forms of systems change.

When reviewing the insights captured during the gathering, we looked for recurring themes, interesting alternative perspectives, and tensionsthese are reflected in the conversation syntheses. It should be noted that the data quality from most of the conversations is quite scrappy, often captured on sticky notes and flipchart paper. We have done our best to triangulate insights based on the raw data, break out group conversations the rapporteurs were immersed in, and group plenary to identify key themes shared in this report.

A cross cutting tension to consider before diving in…

Across conversations at the FOL gathering there was some disagreement amongst participants on the role Labs play in creating social change and justice. Generally there is agreement that Labs are aiming to produce social change. But there is some disagreement around how that change is best produced and stewarded through Labs. The tension that arose re-emphasised the tensions highlighted in the Primer between Critical Social Justice and Social Innovation approaches2. We’ve shared the following chart from the Primer as a brief reminder of the two different perspectives, how they are similar, and different.

As Struthers (2018) highlights3: each approach is “based on a distinct set of assumptions leading to different strategies and ways of organising for social

1 https://www.actionLab.ca/future-of-Labs-gathering

benefit.” The social justice perspective that came through at FOL, suggested that the future purpose of Labs is to produce deep transformational change through a restructuring of power in systems which often involves deconstruction of the old system and working slowly and relationally. In contrast, other

perspectives at FOL emphasised engagement with multiple stakeholder groups (being careful to centre people with lived experience throughout), had an eye towards adapting proposed solutions to help with scaling, and emphasised co-designed solutions (with co-design coming in many forms).

Distinctions between Social Innovation and Social Justice Approaches

Summarized from Struthers Article.

Note this is an attempt to highlight rough distinctions for the purpose of sparking reflective dialogue not to create false dichotomies or rigid definitions.

SOCIAL INNOVATION

→ “New and fluid”, relatively new approach with loos(er) theoretical associations

→ Focus on social(group) problem solving

→ Asset based, opportunistic frame that aims to amplify what is working in a system

→ Results oriented towards improved social outcomes

→ Preference for loose and evolving language to leave room for ‘getting to action’

→ Historically did not emphasize the inclusion of marginalized groups nor prioritize a deeper social analysis of power and privilege

→ Often deliberate about creating relationships amongst very different organizations or individuals

→ Generative orientated

SOCIAL JUSTICE

→ “Established and entrenched”, long(er) history more robustly rooted in theory

→ Equity and justice as primary goal of practice

→ Skeptical approach to systems of power“critical theory” approach that aims to identify problems or needs as flaws to be resisted or corrected

→ Results oriented towards access to justice and equity

→ Emphasis on precision in language that supports clarity and insight into nuance

→ Intentional inclusion of marginalized groups and prioritizes a deeper social analysis of power and privilege

→ Seeks allies with common values

→ Looks at issues and systems through lens’ of oppressor/oppressed

2 See page 37 of the Primer

3 Struthers, M. (2018). At odds or an opportunity? Exploring the tension between the social justice and social innovation narratives, The Philanthropist Journal.

We think it is important to keep these differing perspectives on change making in mind as you read the report as, in many instances, these assumptions underpin the tensions and disagreements in the field today. For example, one way these different perspectives showed up during the gathering was in Conversation 3 around what’s reasonable to expect from Labs. During this conversation scaling came up. Reflecting tensions between these two perspectives, some delegates felt Labs should de-emphasize scaling of solutions while others felt scaling was an essential part of a Lab’s theory of change. Another example of when this showed up was in Conversation 2 around the Niche of Labs with some delegates feeling like Labs’ central role is in facilitating transformation, and in doing so, they could have a role to play in ‘hospicing’ old systems as well as imagining new ones.

We recognize it may be difficult for the field to reconcile the tension between critical social justice and social innovation approaches as the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings are quite different. Attempts to bring both perspectives together is honourable, but continues to show it is very challenging for lab designers and stewards to know when to switch and surf the tensions between the two.

Given this, a question we’re grappling with is: how do we craft working conclusions and possible pathways forward that are broad enough to resonate with practitioners across paradigms of change, but still succinct enough to be coherent to incumbents (funders), and communities who could benefit from Labs?

In this report we’re being brave to put out some draft collective statements. We recognize they might loosely fit but not directly align with the approaches taken up in individual Labs. We’ve designed the statements with what we hope provides some coherence and clarity but also space for Labs to write in their own unique

approaches and theoretical underpinnings. So, if you decide to use these collective statements in your own work, we invite you to customize them, contextualizing them within your own unique theory of change. An example of what we mean is below.

Collective Definition of Labs: Social Innovation Labs hold space for diverse change-makers to sense-make, generate, develop and test a portfolio of promising solutions to address complex societal challenges in a way that is collaborative, experimental, iterative, and systemic.

In our Lab context diverse change-makers means l . Promising solutions means l We hope to support systems change by l OR

In our Lab context diverse change-makers means l . We don’t use the term ‘solutions’ in our Lab, instead we use l because l We believe systemic change happens by l

It's likely there will continue to be diversity in the theories of change taken up by Lab practitioners. So, as an evolving field, we’ll need to continue to be bold in grappling with this really tough tension. One place to start might be to push each other to get clear on the theories of change we are drawing on, their utility, and the implications of that perspective (who’s left out, what does it mean for people today, etc.). So at a minimum we can start to better understand how each of us is working in similar and different ways.

Conversation 1: Defining Labs

What do we mean by Social Innovation Labs?

Why it matters

Social Innovation Labs can’t be everything and there can’t be ‘one version’. What is our working definition of Labs? What are the core attributes? What are Lab types and contexts? The purpose of converging on a working definition of Social Innovation Labs is not to establish a rigid, set standard but rather to try and understand the unique and shared attributes of this specific approach to change making, inclusive of its many variations.

Conversation 2: Exploring Our ‘Niche’, Situating Labs Amongst Other Change Approaches

What are Labs’ unique contributions to social change?

Why it matters

Social change, innovation, and transformation require multiple types of change strategies, such as policy advocacy and activism, community organising, multi-stakeholder engagement strategies, and social entrepreneurship, to name a few. With a variety of social change approaches, each with its own unique strengths, limitations, and contributions, we think it can be helpful to explore the ‘niche’ for Labs amongst them. How do Labs distinguish themselves from other social change approaches? Under what conditions is a Lab approach appropriate and when might other social change approaches be better?

Conversation 3: What’s Reasonable to Expect from Labs?

What’s reasonable to expect about the scale, pace, and durability of Lab results?

Why it matters

When asking what is reasonable to expect from Labs, the reality is, we really don’t know. Unsurprisingly, our expectations often surpass the reality of what it truly takes to make progress on complex challenges. Let’s see if we can do this better so as to better manage expectations by everyone involved and design better Labs.

Conversation 4: Helpful Lab Practices

What are the capabilities, mindsets, methods, and skills needed to design, manage, and evaluate high quality Social Innovation Labs?

Why it matters

As we look to collectively vision and offer possible next practices for the field, we feel it’s important to reflect on and name the practices and processes that support meaningful and impactful Labs. What capabilities are

‘core’ to Labs, what are important and relational, and what are deeply situational/context specific? What do Labs and Lab practitioners need to get substantially better at in the next 5-10 years?

Conversation 5: What are the Necessary Conditions and Supporting Ecosystem for Social Innovation Labs to Thrive in Canada?

What kind of ecosystem do we need to ensure that the Lab movement – and individual Labs – thrive?

Why it matters

As practitioners we understand that Labs have a place in a larger ecosystem of systems change. How might we articulate a pathway to better resource and deepen the Lab field; and identify synergies and pathways through policy, finance, culture, supports, markets and skills development, to how our collective efforts can contribute to positive system change? Where are we now with this type of ecosystem? What are the things we need to do next?

STARTING OFF IN A GOOD WAY

Hollyhock on Cortes Island sits on the traditional territories of the Klahoose, Tla’amin, and Homalco Nations.

The gathering began in a deeply intentional and relational way. On the first evening, delegates gathered in Olatunji Hall, where we were warmly welcomed by Brenda and Rose Hanson of the Klahoose First Nation. Brenda and Rose opened the gathering in a meaningful way, sharing about the inspiring land we were gathered and learning from, including their ancestors and stories. Delegates were welcomed through a prayer led by Rose, and Brenda honored us with a beautiful song.

Rose and Brenda Hanson

WHAT WE’RE PROUD OF, WHAT’S PUZZLING, OR WHAT’S PROMISING RELATED TO THE FOL

In preparation for the gathering, delegates were invited to bring with them a Lab-related artefact that represents something they’re proud of, that puzzles them, or that seems promising related to the FOL. Examples included photos, a quote of something said by a Lab participant, Lab publications, written stories, and artefacts that are connected to the land delegates worked on or representing a collective they worked alongside.

Delegates gathered in small groups, introducing themselves and sharing the stories behind their artefacts. These artefacts were then displayed on a table, each accompanied by a description, for attendees to view and reflect on throughout the duration of the gathering.

SOLIDIFYING OUR RELATIONSHIPS AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO EACH OTHER IN THIS WORK

The morning of the second day, Diane Roussin highlighted the importance of connecting with all aspects of our beingness - spiritual, physical, emotional, and intellectual selves. Diane reminded us that relationships form the foundation of our work and our being together. As part of this grounding, tobacco, one of the four sacred medicines, was offered as an invitation to enter into relationship with one another. Each participant was asked to put their thoughts and energy into the tobacco, which was then used to create a group tobacco tie - a symbol of our collective commitment and relationship. Additionally, individual tobacco ties prepared by the Winnipeg Boldness team were distributed, inviting each person to engage personally and meaningfully. Diane concluded the opening with an Anishinaabe song, its translation “come in, all of us”, called in our ancestors and all present to do this work in a relational way.

“When relationships are strong you can go into complexity fast and get shit done.” Diane Roussin

FOL delegate, André Fortin, began the morning of the second day by sharing a song he created, incorporating sounds from the island.

OUR PRINCIPLES FOR ENGAGING TOGETHER

Delegates were encouraged to consider what they hope to take away from the experience and the ways they can contribute. Throughout our time at Hollyhock, and following the event, delegates were provided opportunities to share their thoughts about how what they are learning relates to their work, what potential it opens up, and what next steps we could take together.

→ Let’s think inside the circle

A teaching shared by Diane Roussin, we emphasize creative thinking inside the circle to create space for relational ways of being and foster intuition, allowing us to be agile and responsive to our community.

→ Let’s strive for coherence more than consensus

We accept and understand there will be differences in opinion, and disagreements. Our space is one of mutual respect, where disagreements are acknowledged but not required to be resolved. Let’s recognize if there is something called Labs into the future, it needs to be clearer to us, to system leaders, to funders, to communities, around what Labs are, what niche contexts they are helpful for, where they shouldn’t be used, and what is reasonable to expect from Labs. Let’s aim for coherence.

→ Let’s embrace complexity with boldness and humility

A ‘both-and’ mindset is likely wiser than ‘either-or’. In times of chaos and uncertainty, it’s the stories we share and the relationships we nurture that guide us. We approach challenges with boldness, fearlessness, and kindness while being humble and striving to minimize harm. Remember, making Labs better isn’t really about us - AND it’s a bit about us.

→ Let’s think systemically and act relationally with kindness

By both centering lived experience of Lab stewardship and listening to whole system insights, we can better notice tensions and consider implications for decisions and future directions. Let’s also be considerate

of the time we have on the island. Many volunteer leaders have offered to design and facilitate the 5 conversations despite their limited time. Please try to show up on time. We will work hard together during the day, and play hard during meals and the evening to strengthen relationships. Look out for each other in our community and support.

→ Let’s hold space for intuition, questioning AND bold action

Let’s be careful not to believe everything we think and feel - AND also trust our intuition. Let’s try to recognize we all have preferences, biases and experiences we bring. There is a paradox in trusting our gut and also checking our biases as we move forward together. Let’s be aware that good questions are powerful for change - AND let’s recognize answering questions with more questions is a privilege, safe, and we can avoid critique if we just keep proposing deeper and deeper questions without bold action attached. Many communities and systems cannot afford endless questions as an answer to complex challenges. But there is a paradox in that we need the right questions to point us in good future directions too.

→ Let’s be open to the old, the new and a dash of surprise - the emergent

Canadian Social Innovation leader Al Etmanski suggests for innovation, or new pathways in complex systems we likely need to be mixing ideas from history, being open to new possibilities and be open to surprises that will emerge through all of our sharing, exchanging, learning and being curious together about the FOL.

→ Let’s try not to make Labs about everything

There is kindness in clarity and creating boundaries on scope. Staying true to the original intentions and purpose of FOL helps to ensure we design and generate an offering for the FOL that transcends individual interests - for Lab processes and systems to work better.

→ Let’s recognize we don’t have to figure everything out in 2 and a half days

In our time together we aim to both strengthen relationships, coherence and insights around the FOL, but we don’t have to figure it all out. We can’t. There will be a post gathering survey to share thoughts. There will also be opportunities to share ideas on the island with our podcaster. With funding we also hope to have short, think- pieces/blogs related to the FOL from experienced Lab leaders who join the event. Exactly what will happen after and what organizations and leaders will pick up the threads and further develop them is still to be determined and will emerge from our collective.

CONVERSATION 1: DEFINING LABS

Led by Ben Weinlick and Aleeya Velji

What do we mean by Social Innovation Labs?

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE GATHERING

Together Ben and Aleeya shared the following definition and core attributes of Labs. This version had been refined based on feedback from a survey that went out to practitioners ahead of the gathering. FOL participants again had an opportunity to react to the definition and offer feedback. Ben and Aleeya shared that so often in these types of gatherings, groups can spend the whole time wordsmithing a definition and not get to the depth required. Instead of large group re-writes of the definition, a canvas with voting options and suggested upgrades was presented to everyone and everyone invited to engage in edits over the two days on the canvas.

Participants were encouraged to consider that a decent definition should feel okay for stewards/ practitioners of Labs, but maybe more importantly, it should help funders, communities, incumbents, and systems leaders to see more clearly the potential value, unique niche, and purpose of Labs. The implication being that a definition we suggest for others may not feel exactly right for deep practitioners of Labs, but we should embrace that, because as one of the FOL principles stated, “the FOL is kind of about us (practitioners) but also not about us”. Delegates were reminded that FOL is more about honing the next generation of problem-solving labs that help communities and systems to be better. We are codesigning the future of labs sort of for ourselves, but more to offer robust ways of tackling wicked challenges when the niche of labs might be needed.

Working Definition of Labs

Words highlighted in blue are changes based on the feedback from the FOL pre-gathering survey (see below Feedback on Working Definition) and convening group.

Social Innovation Labs hold space for diverse change-makers to sense-make, generate, develop, and test a portfolio of promising solutions to address complex societal challenges in a way that is collaborative, experimental, iterative, and systemic.

Minimum core principles of Social Innovation Labs:

→ Focused on complex societal challenges

→ Learns from diverse perspectives from across a system, while centering those with lived experience

→ Explores collaborative ways of working on a shared complex challenge

→ Systemic in thinking and action

→ Experimental in iteratively developing and testing possible solutions, ideally in real life and at a minimum in realistic settings

→ Aim at exploring root causes of complex challenges and then generating possible solutions and pathways from leverage points

Another really important piece to the definition of labs is to consider the different types and contexts of labs that were identified in the Primer. The working definition aims to be a kind of mothership that unites across all the diverse and varying types of labs. In the Primer, some of the types of labs identified were Technical Challenge Labs, Service Design Labs, Policy Labs, Systems Change Labs, Place Based Labs, and Labs as Service (consultancies that do labs). FOL needed to consider if a working definition could hold all types of Labs in order to help with coherence and communication about Labs. Also it was noted from the

Primer that FOL consciously left out accelerator labs, and social enterprise incubator labs as those labs tend to not hold space for diverse change-makers to sensemake a system challenge, nor create space to hone the problems to be worked on from multiple perspectives. Social enterprise and accelerator incubators can be important in the portfolio of systems change methods and important for scaling certain types of solutions, but they don’t quite meet the definition criteria above for social innovation labs. It was important for FOL to get better at discerning these distinctions to improve coherence and communication around labs. As Carl Sagan said, "If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all."

WHAT WE HEARD AT THE GATHERING

From the dot votes, FOL delegates felt the upgraded definition was roughly right.

Roughly right, a few flaws but I’m supportive of the direction

people

This feels good, I’m all for it.

Not supportive, there needs to be a serious overhaul

Some recurring language suggestions included:

→ Changing the language of “changemakers” and “solutions” (examples: interventions, proofs of possibility, potentials, pathways, approaches, shifts, probes of systems, levers)

→ Rather than ‘including’ people with lived experience, ‘centre’, ‘grounded in’, etc.

CONVERSATION 2: EXPLORING OUR ‘NICHE’, SITUATING LABS AMONGST OTHER CHANGE APPROACHES

Led by Darcy Riddel and Patrick Dubé

When and how are Labs most powerfully employed? WHAT HAPPENED AT THE GATHERING

Darcy and Patrick provided four social change frameworks to support locating a Lab approach:

2. Berkana Two Loops

1. Panarchy - Adaptive Systems

3. Medicine Wheel

4. Multi-Layer Perspective

Participants selected one framework and used the following questions to explore it with a partner:

→ What are the niches (where) Labs can contribute to this system change framework?

→ What is/are the unique or most interesting niche(s) for a Lab using this system framework?

→ Why there?

→ Under what conditions or context can Labs best create value at these locations?

Pairs then formed a foursome to share their reflections and further discuss the following questions:

→ What is the unique added value of Labs in relation to other modalities (i.e. collective impact, social enterprise, social movement, innovation challenges, accelerators, incubators, mission oriented innovation, etc.)

→ What can’t/shouldn’t the Lab do in these action spaces?

→ What happens when Labs are conflated with other social/system change modalities? Where does a Lab responsibility end into these action spaces?

WHAT WE HEARD AT THE GATHERING

Based on the reflections shared back by pairs, it appears the Two Loops Model and Medicine Wheel were primarily discussed by delegates.

Resoundingly we heard that one niche is that Labs are good at convening diverse stakeholders and cultivating strong trusting relationships. The act of convening was seen as one of the most important things Labs practitioners do, and it is done with great intention, care, and time. Participants shared that the intentionality around the invitation, the container, and what happens within it is something that sets Social Innovation Labs apart from other approaches.

“The social function of Labs is more important than what comes out of the Lab; it re-socializes people to be in a different way.”

FOL Delegate

“Trust building is so powerful in a Lab process and something that transcends the Lab process.”

FOL Delegate

Delegates highlighted that Labs support depolarization by helping bridge divides and building understanding across diverse perspectives. While Labs often strive to be more impartial, they are guided by a clear vision, with vision holders - such as Lab leaders and facilitators - who excel at articulating the purpose and continually bringing participants back to the core “why” behind the Lab. This balance between neutrality and purposeful direction supports Labs ability to foster understanding and collaboration across diverse perspectives.

“Because Labs have a central sustaining stewardship, it supports things moving forward even when some stakeholders are not cooperative.” FOL Delegate

Several groups surfaced that Labs are fundamentally about learning

→ Learning about each other and the system

→ Learning about what’s needed to transition to better future states (mindsets, tools, processes)

→ Learning how to work collectively – when we do it well, people are bought in

“If you don’t learn anything, you’re not letting go of anything.”

FOL Delegate

“Labs are a space for learning about and working through shit.”

FOL Delegate

There was discussion around the niche of Labs being about transformation rather than focused on solutions to problems. Some participants suggested moving away from the solution/problem dichotomy, as focusing solely on solutions might limit the transformative potential of Labs. However, there was not consensus on whether Labs inherently aim for transformation. What transformation meant likely had varying interpretations in the minds of delegates. Most commonly, conversations on transformation entailed notions of transitioning from old system paradigms to new system paradigms. How much of the transformation blended old and new systems was rarely articulated. But the general notion with transformation was a deeply generative one with less pragmatic attention to what a stakeholder group in a Lab might need to change or transform on shorter term horizons.

Some argued that we should let go of labs focusing on ‘solutions’. This could take the form of using prototyping and testing as tools to better understand the problem, rather than identifying solutions. In this view, prototypes serve as creative probes to explore the system(s), helping reframe issues and check assumptions, which can be more effective than simply talking about the problem.

“Is transformation inherently a part of Lab work?” FOL Delegate

“Is a solution orientation (as opposed to a transformation orientation) a Lab’s kryptonite?”

FOL Delegate

This lively discussion also brought up questions surrounding the role of Labs in transformation. Some delegates wondered if Labs of the future could occupy a ‘hospicing’ role, supporting an old system to die and the transition into new paradigms. This idea suggests Labs could engage in the act of letting go, helping to ‘end’ systems. Some questioned whether Labs could be a space for navigating grief scenarios, offering support not just for new possibilities but also for the process of closure and endings. Depending on the size and connections of a system(s), other delegates raised pragmatic considerations. Do Labs and Lab practitioners have the, often advanced, skills required to hospice a system(s) with integrity? Do they have the sphere of influence, relationships, and authority to do this work? Who gets to decide a system is ready to die? Whose perspective matters and whose does not? How do you equitably manage the countless perspectives on what needs to die or stay alive in a system(s)? One delegate emphasized that hospicing should always be considered within the broader arc of what Labs are aiming to do - bring about positive social change. They cautioned against replacing what Labs currently do with hospicing, suggesting that hospicing might best be considered an ‘add on’ to what Labs already do:

“If you’re just hospicing, I don’t know if that’s a Lab. If you’re just saying goodbye, and not saying hello to anything, what are you doing?”

FOL Delegate

Whether labs begin to take on the role of hospicing more fulsomely or not, delegates seemed to agree that there is merit in engaging with hospice oriented thinking and tools as part of a Lab process as, at a minimum, they might help generate insights around how to transform and transition systems from old to new.

Some delegates pointed out that Labs have not been as effective at culture change. One delegate referenced an article that outlined three primary ways change comes about: markets, cultures, and policy4. It was felt that while some Labs are good at policy change, they are seen as less effective in shaping cultural systems change, which is where social movements tend to thrive in driving social change. Systems change is deeply rooted in culture, beliefs, and values, but some delegates felt Labs are often not centred there for that kind of change.

Delegates surfaced that Labs are inherently holistic and generative in their approach. Some people felt the primary contribution Labs make is identifying root causes to complex problems while others challenged this perspective. One delegate remarked:

“I think we say we are good at identifying root causes. I’ve said it lots and thought our labs were doing great at it. But now I'm less and less convinced we're actually good at it. A tension may be that we need to acknowledge this more. I have a hunch that AI that we don’t quite have yet, combined with human community sensemaking will help more in the future to get to better root cause analysis. People's lived experience stories are often pointed to as the best sources of finding root causes, but I actually think now, it's not so much the case that we’re

getting closer to real root causes. There is deep bias everywhere and it’s harder than ever to navigate well. Whole systems perspectives, lived experience centred, and really good literature reviews are needed. Good labs have always said that. But I think the field is going to need to develop some additional ways of honestly looking for real root causes to design pathways or new systems around”

As this delegate raises, perhaps there is more work to be done to continue to get better at identifying root causes.

As a whole, this conversation highlighted the many tensions that persist in the field related to the role Labs play in broader change making efforts.

4 Surman, T. (2018). Unlocking Canadian Social Innovation: https://socialinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Unlocking-Canadian-Social-Innovation-.pdf

CONVERSATION 3: WHAT’S REASONABLE TO EXPECT FROM LABS [SCALE, PACE, DURABILITY OF RESULTS]?

Led by Mark Cabaj and Marlieke Kieboom

How do you create a shared narrative around what’s appropriate to achieve? We feel we need to get better at articulating: ‘what does progress look like and how are we going to get there (knowing it will evolve)?’

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE GATHERING

The session was meant to more deeply explore two of the four ideas about what Lab stakeholders should consider reasonable to expect proposed in the FOL Primer5.

To do this, participants were active in two exercises:

EXERCISE 1: MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE PAIRED INTERVIEWS

Participants ‘paired up’ to interview each other on the most significant result they’ve seen come from a Lab and why it's significant, then posted it on the CONVERGE Impact Diagram (see below). If the result did not fit in one of the existing CONVERGE categories participants were invited to create a new category.

See Appendix A for examples of participant insights during this session.

EXERCISE 1: MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE PAIRED INTERVIEWS

Participants were invited to do a ‘soft shoe shuffle’ locating themselves on a continuum with the following extremes:

1. In the future, Labs should emphasize developing and testing solutions to complex challenges that can/should be scaled more broadly

2. In the future, Labs should emphasize developing, testing, and - if appropriate - sustaining helpful solutions that work locally, and not worry about broader scaling beyond place.

5 The Primer is downloadable from the FOL website: https://www.actionLab.ca/future-of-Labs-gathering

WHAT WE HEARD AT THE GATHERING

1. Labs generate (at least) four broad types of results

Participants concluded that the four types of results represented in the “Lab Results Diagram” developed for the 2018 CONVERGE Final Report and in the FOL, were

LAB RESULTS DIAGRAM

SYSTEMATIC INNOVATIONS

BUILDING CITIZEN AGENCY COMMUNITY CONNECTION Supporting prototypes to scale Supporting system leaders

IMPACT

“roughly right”. They mapped the vast majority of their post-it notes, which summarized the significant results that emerged out of their conversations, against one or more of the types of results. In an informal poll following the mapping exercise, most participants voted that the visualization offered a ‘roughly right’ framing of Lab results.

PARTICIPANT PLOTTING OF RESULTS

Figure 1. Impact Diagram from the CONVERGE Final Report

However, many participants pointed out ways that the description of these outcomes could be more fully elaborated. Some of the feedback includes:

Building Citizen Agency

PRIMER DESCRIPTION

Increasing Lab participants’ confidence, skills, and commitment to participating in civic life and the change process. This is not only necessary for a productive Lab, but it’s an outcome that reflects a commitment to building a vibrant, inclusive, participatory democracy.

PARTICIPANT ELABORATION AT THE GATHERING

Challenge the status quo, consider improbable futures, unlock creativity, and encourage transformative thinking.

Strengthening Community Connections

Systemic Innovations

Impact

Strengthening the connections and relationships between diverse stakeholders encourages people to see issues through a variety of different lenses, enhances a sense of collective agency, and can build a constituency for making change.

Expanding the set of quality solutions to a complex challenge in a way that is informed by diverse perspectives, systems thinking and based on a systematic process of surfacing, developing and testing possible solutions.

The tangible progress made on complex challenges (e.g., more equitable employment, protecting biodiversity, better housing) and changing the deeper systems that hold them in place.

Acknowledging and trying to address power imbalances.

The process of developing and testing solutions is based in - and done by and with - community and key stakeholders.

Expanding the set of quality solutions

An emphasis on transformative systems change at a scale that addresses the poly-crises.

2. Lab stakeholders have different preferences for the core purpose and/or results of a Lab

Participants’ general agreement about the types of results that Labs can generate did not translate into a consensus on what results should be most central in designing, implementing, and evaluating Labs.

Some felt strongly that building citizen agency and connections for participants is the most important outcome of a Lab. They point out that any given Lab cannot ‘guarantee’ progress on an issue and warn about the dangers of ‘solutionism’ (aka a belief that all problems have one or more technical solutions):

“The idea that it’s not in our control – once you’ve done the inner work it can all happen.” FOL Delegate

“Not focusing on solutionism and prototyping – but rather the inner work needed; connectivity work, civic agency work." FOL

Delegate

Other participants felt that coming up with systemic innovation that can positively impact stubborn societal challenges should be a central concern of Labs. While civic agency and creating connections are important outcomes, they argued, they are also building blocks for unleashing people’s creativity and committing to getting at the roots of stubborn challenges:

“The point of a Lab is to develop effective responses to real issues, to make change. If Labs don’t try to do that, then why are they called Labs? They have to do more than just community mobilizing."

FOL Delegate

Yet other participants debated the merits of embedding Labs in a strong social justice and transformative change orientation - using Labs as ways to ‘hospice’ the seeming decline of our current systems while developing entirely new ways of doing things - versus trying to ‘shrink the focus’ to developing more immediate responses:

“You can’t really change some of these things until you change the underlying structures, like capitalism and racism. It’ll just be window dressing if you don’t.”

FOL Delegate

“We have to - and can - get microplastics out of the ocean right now. We can’t wait - and don’t have to wait - for a transformed world to do that.” FOL Delegate

The richness of the debate on what comprises the ‘best’ results of a Lab revealed, in the words of one participant, a paradox in the field:

“We all believe in inclusive and pluralist communities and societies, yet we are having a hard time manifesting that ourselves. Can’t we say the field is united on the importance of Labs and its core features, but that there is a lot of differences in what we focus on and why, and that is ok because it reflects a diversity in the field?"

FOL Delegate

3. The emphasis on whether or not to scale depends on the purpose and context of the Lab

The shoe shuffle exercise uncovered a range of opinions and ideas on whether participants felt that Labs should scale or not scale whatever promising solutions emerge from their efforts.

→ The majority of participants (30 plus) felt that Labs should focus on supporting community actors to develop (and sustain) solutions that work in their unique context, and not be overly concerned about their scalability in the design of the Lab,

STRENGTHS

Lab should be designed to develop and test solutions that can be scaled broadly.

→ Scale of polycrises requires us to scale solutions.

→ Aiming or scale may make it easier to mobilize resources and actors.

Labs should focus on developing local solutions that address local issues, and not worry about scaling to other contexts.

→ More emphasis on the directions and needs of community.

→ Solutions more likely to reflect unique local context

→ Expands ability to increase agency and connections of local participants.

→ Easier to mobilize funding for experimental - than scaling - work.

→ A very small number of participants (roughly 5) felt that Labs should be designed - and expectedto scale solutions.

→ A medium sized group (roughly 12) expressed uncertainty and/or emphasized that the answer ‘depended’ on the situation.

The rich discussion that emerged when people shared their rationale for their ‘shuffle position’ revealed that (1) it may be best to avoid the urge to assume there is a ‘right or wrong’ answer to the question of ‘to scale or not to scale’ and (2) instead be clear on the specific context and larger change strategy in which the Lab approach was being used. Two situations stand out: largely local Labs and issue-based, non-local Labs. See Table 1.

→ May miss solutions that might work in 1 community simply because they are not scalable.

→ May encourage one-size-fits-all thinking and solutions, and even imposing solutions on diverse communities.

→ May limit the number and variety of local actors who want to be part of the change process.

→ Scaling requires different skills and people than early experimenting.

→ Difficult to mobilize resources for scaling effort.

→ May limit broader thinking on how to approach the issue

→ May not address larger nonlocal systemic forces that underlie local challenges.

→ May not make it easy to mobilize resources if only focused on one community.

Non-local Labs, where participants aim to work together to solve an issue that cuts across communities.

Can include communities, but the emphasis is on surfacing scalable solutions.

Local/community Labs, where stakeholders are primarily local/community based.

May surface solutions that might be worthy of scaling, but that is not the primary purpose.

Table 1: Two Situations to Consider Scaling

“Labs are expensive and slow, I can’t justify the way of this work to not be for some form of scale."

FOL Delegate

“Considering a specific context –only place to see if it’s actually making a difference. Yes there might be important lessons to then share and scale – but I’m not sure that’s the work of the Lab. There is danger in “this is important to see in the world” – not sure that’s the work of the Lab." Cheryl

Rose

“The scales of the issues of the polycrisis - if we work community by community we will die quickly."

FOL Delegate

“We owe it to the Lab to be in service to it in it’s specific time and context – if we’re already thinking about other contexts (ie. scaling) how are we in service to that specific context. Scaling it becomes a different project."

FOL Delegate

“I feel the weight of the investment all the time. You should be thinking about scaling from the outset."

FOL Delegate

“The learning through the ecosystem is very context specific." FOL Delegate

Delegates participating in the Soft Shoe Shuffle

4. We are still working on a shared understanding of what we mean by ‘scaling’ in innovation work

The discussion about whether Labs should - and should not - make scaling their results a priority revealed that practitioners have different levels of understanding and opinions about what it looks like in practice. Some of the discussion highlights include:

→ Several participants seemed to assume scaling meant a focused emphasis on “replicating” solutions elsewhere, while others referred to a broader conception of scaling which includes the following attributes:

> Scaling out - expanding impact by supporting its adoption by others (including replication).

> Scaling deep - capturing hearts and minds of broader networks and society to support the idea behind the innovation.

> Scaling up - changing policies and systems to support the innovation.

→ Other participants surfaced the different ways to support the ‘scaling out’ of Lab results, emphasizing that it's not only about “replication” of models or solutions, but pollinating the ideas and results so that other social innovators can “riff on” and “reshape them” for their own contexts.

→ Yet participants pointed out Lab stakeholders can also scale the learnings that emerge from their efforts, in addition to specific promising solutions (e.g. a model, a policy, a new institution):

“We

all have a role in scaling. Taking something from one domain and inputting

it into another domain. Not the role of Labs to take something – responsibility to mobilize and share the knowledge in context so that others might learn quickly. It’s a push vs. pull. Don’t scale the prototype – scale the learning.

Scaling vs.

pollinating." FOL Delegate

“The moral imperative – to think about sharing that out, and that’s a form of scale. It’s not replication (ie. cookie cutter). If it does look like something that can be useful, share that out. We don’t talk to each other enough.” FOL Delegate

“Part of what we ask people to do is to take that away in their work. That’s a form of scale. Deliberately a part of our theory of change. The question of what do we mean by scale and replication? They’re not the same.” Sarah Brooks (Energy Futures Lab)

→ Finally, some participants pointed out that there are different perspectives on scaling that may be rooted in different worldviews (e.g., Indigenous perspectives) and should take into account that scaling ‘anything’ depends on the inner changes and transformation of Lab participants.

One veteran Lab practitioner captured one of the challenges of building the Lab field in this next chapter of its development:

“There are a lot of people relatively new to the discussion of scaling at this event, so it feels like we are covering old ground, and maybe our field is not on the same page on some of these basic things. At the same time, the discussion of scaling

solutions and learnings is new and indicates that we are advancing: we did not talk about this 10 years ago much. That's progress!”

Additional resources on scaling:

→ Everyday Patterns for Shifting Systems Right Scaling https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_ file/0024/1867002/Right-Scaling_Patterns_ TSI-and-GCSI.pdf

→ Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep Strategies of Non-profits in Advancing Systemic Social Innovation by Michele-Lee Moorea and Darcy Riddell (2015)

→ Problematizing Scale in the Social Sector (1): Expanding Conceptions An opinion piece by Gord Tulloch https://www.inwithforward.com/2018/01/ expanding-conceptions-scale-within-socialsector/

CONVERSATION 4: HELPFUL LAB PRACTICES

Led by Alex Ryan and Keren Perla

What are the capabilities, mindsets, methods, and skills needed to design, manage, and evaluate high quality Social Innovation Labs? What do Labs and Lab practitioners need to get substantially better at in the next 5-10 years?

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE GATHERING

Alex and Keren began the session with a role play of a skit between an incumbent (and prospective funder) of a Lab on disinformation and a Lab as a Service consultant pitching the value of Labs. Following the workshop, they translated the skit into a series of four cartoons:

Alex and Keren’s skit surfaced amongst participants the need for a clearer value proposition for funders/ incumbents.

“Made me feel we have a branding issue." FOL

Delegate

“We have to be externally coherent"

FOL Delegate

A Provocation: Next, Alex and Keren then presented their thesis and provocation to the group. Social Innovation Labs are uniquely good at holding space for diverse groups to ideate transformational ideas for a better world. But an overly narrow focus of the Labs movement on optimizing the participant experience at the fuzzy front end of innovation has left a gulf between the promise of Labs and what they actually deliver. This makes it challenging to gain the trust of incumbents who are needed to invest in the Lab; as well as communities who are invited to vest their time, trauma, hopes and dreams in the Lab. To succeed in the coming decade, we contend that Labs need to extend their empathetic horizons to include incumbents who may legitimately fear systems change. They need to be able to get out of the Lab space and engage with much more of the community where they are at. And Labs need to progress beyond tabletop prototypes to spread and scale innovations that create measurable and attributable real-world impact over the course of decades.

Alex and Keren introduced a framework for exploring how to expand the field of Lab practices across three phases (Ideation to Scaling) and three layers (Community to Incumbent):

WHO PRIMARILY BENEFITS:

Incumbent (status quo/ institutions/power/ funder)

Lab participants (cohort)

Community & More Than Human (constituents)

Labs want incumbents’ money but not their status quo bias

Labs are arguably uniquely best at this!

Labs do engage community deeply in need-finding, but sample sizes are very small

Participants first self-organized into groups each focused on an intersection that aligned with their passion space to discuss:

→ What are your most important Lab practices in your area?

→ How might they be enhanced in the next decade?

→ What capabilities are needed to deliver on this?

In a second round of conversations, using the same intersections, participants moved to where they saw the biggest value gap where Labs need to get significantly better. They then shared:

→ What new practices do Labs need to invent / borrow / reinvent to fill this value gap?

→ What new talent is needed to do this? What new capabilities do we need?

→ What needs to be done to decolonize Lab practices in this area?

→ What existing practices do we need to retain?

It’s hard to get incumbents excited about the Lab’s scrappy prototypes

Labs are pretty great at this too!

Labs usually involve community in prototyping but not normally as designers

This is what Labs vaguely allude to as the impact in the sales pitch

Here be Unicorns

Labs can’t really do this unless they secure a decade of funding

Alex Ryan and Keren Perla

WHAT WE HEARD AT THE GATHERING

Practices, mindsets, skills, and capabilities needed to run highly effective Labs

Building Capabilities for Scaling Systems Change

In the breakout group conversations, participants emphasized that for Social Innovation Labs to achieve sustainable impact, they must enhance their ability to progress beyond prototyping and contribute to scaling systems change. This requires not only a shift in Lab practices but also stronger collaborations with allied movements, partners, and funders.

Recommendations for Scaling:

→ Secure Funding for Scale: Participants noted the need for Labs to secure funding from the beginning to support diffusion and scaling. Although funding itself is not a capability, this implies Labs need to develop deeper capabilities in business development, fundraising, government relations, impact measurement, and strategic communications. Suggestions included designing innovative financial instruments and exploring ways to monetize participant networks.

→ Develop Leadership for Scaling: Several groups discussed the importance of cultivating leadership skills that can guide initiatives from ideation to broad implementation. Recommendations included expanding coaching and mentoring programs focused on systems thinking.

→ Strengthen Ecosystem Awareness: There was a strong call for Labs to better understand their role within the broader social innovation ecosystem. Participants recommended learning from other movements (social justice movements, living Labs, collective impact, challenges, missions, social entrepreneurship etc.), forming agile partnerships, and building stronger connections between Labs that excel at different stages of the innovation process.

→ Enhance Foresight for Scaling Opportunities to be prepared when scaling opportunities arise, groups suggested that Labs improve their networking capabilities, conduct readiness assessments, and maintain a library of prototypes ready for deployment.

→ Embrace Experimentation and Knowledge Sharing: Participants emphasized the need for Labs to cultivate a culture of experimentation, documenting their experiences rigorously to create a repository of use cases and best practices for scaling.

Improved Value Add to Incumbents and Funders

Participants highlighted the need for Labs to deliver clearer value to incumbents—such as government agencies, businesses, and established nonprofits— as funders and stakeholders. This involves aligning Lab outcomes with the strategic goals of these stakeholders while maintaining a commitment to social change. It also requires attention to hospicing dying systems and exapting transitioning systems in addition to incubating new enterprises.

Recommendations for Enhancing Value to Incumbents and Funders:

→ Deepen Relationships with Funders: Participants suggested that Labs should build trust with funders by understanding their priorities, providing valuealigned proposals, and involving them throughout the process. This could involve profiling different funder types, crafting targeted value propositions, engaging funders in Lab governance, and broadening the range of capital accessed.

→ Deliver Strategic Insights and Solutions: Several groups recommended that Labs differentiate themselves by offering insights and solutions that incumbents can implement directly to enhance their social impact. This might involve actionable research insights, demonstrating policy impact, innovation partnerships, or piloting scalable solutions.

Improved Value Add to Participants

Groups recognized that participants—including Lab members, partners, and people with lived experience— should experience clear, tangible benefits from their involvement in Lab activities. Labs must create environments where participants feel valued, heard, and empowered to contribute meaningfully.

Recommendations for Adding Value to Participants:

→ Expand Roles and Pathways for Engagement: Participants expressed a desire for Labs to offer multiple ways for engagement beyond traditional Lab activities. This includes meeting communities where they are, hosting Labs in diverse settings, and ensuring engagement opportunities are accessible and inclusive.

→ Embrace Equity and Inclusivity in Engagement: Groups called for Labs to apply an equity lens to all engagement efforts, ensuring fair compensation, accessible participation, and respect for the time and energy of community members. The idea of becoming “design allies” was also raised, guiding Labs to co-create solutions with communities rather than imposing them.

Improved Value Add to Community

There was a consensus that Labs should be deeply embedded in and accountable to the communities they aim to serve. Participants suggested that Labs focus on building trust, fostering genuine relationships, and generating multiple forms of value for communities.

Recommendations for Adding Value to Communities:

→ Deepen Community Engagement: Groups recommended that Labs move beyond traditional settings and engage communities in their own spaces. Several groups imagined future Lab processes anchored in ‘love and care for the community’ and for them to maintain their ‘authenticity’, ‘hope’, and ‘sense of possibility’. Suggestions included integrating more regular touchpoints with the broader community and adapting methods to fit community contexts and needs.

→ Focus on Community-Driven Leadership and Governance:: Participants called for Labs to emphasize local and collective governance models that empower community members to take the lead. Ideas included “rematriating capital” and rethinking whether scaling is always the right path.

→ Prioritize Decolonization of Lab Practices: Many groups highlighted the need for Labs to commit to decolonizing their practices by integrating Indigenous methods, fostering reflexive and trauma-informed approaches, slowing down to align with community pace, and using local and collective governance models.

CONVERSATION 5: WHAT

ARE THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS AND SUPPORTING ECOSYSTEM FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION LABS TO THRIVE IN CANADA?

Led by Diane Roussin, Geraldine Cahill, and Tim Draimin

Labs generate a rich array of prototypes or fully realized solutions that require ecosystem support to get purchase, to be scaled, to have the greatest impact. We believe an enabling ecosystem benefits Labs both in terms of addressing their operational needs and in creating an environment that could see outcomes achieve their greatest potential.

What

does that enabling ecosystem look like? And what conditions can be fostered for it to be most successful?

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE GATHERING

Participants were invited to choose one of six ‘ecosystems’ (i.e. policy, finance, culture, markets, human capital, or supports) to gather around and collectively discuss answers to the following three questions:

1. What do we have and need today?

2. What do we imagine 10 years from now?

3. How will we get there?

WHAT WE HEARD AT THE GATHERING

Is the enabling environment better than in 2018?

Amongst diverse opinions, there was a general consensus that it is worse than in 2018 and that we need a collective consciousness around ecosystems so that we can advance the field. As Alex Ryan put it“We need to think much bigger”.

Necessary Attributes of a Supportive Ecosystem

High level themes from participant contributions across groups are shared below. There was significant overlap in ideas surfaced across groups (e.g. policy group discussed need for improved measurement of impact as did funding group).

1. “Social innovation’s role (how to collaboratively address complex challenges) is understood and valued as an essential driver for change and embedded in Canada’s innovation ecosystem”: Getting to this overarching goal was discussed as intertwined with the actions outlined below (e.g. establishing entry points to the profession, getting better at evaluating impact, PR strategy, etc.)

→ “We have changed the way we create change”

→ “We are embedded at local/national levels”

2. Sufficient and sustainable funding is accessible (for all parts of the Lab process): Participants highlighted the need for funding to be both sufficient and sustainable. Part of this discussion was generating ideas for how to diversify funding opportunities and an emphasis on the need to actively pursue different types of funding (rather than sit and hope they turn up).

→ “Public funding that is independent of election cycles”

→ “Scale of investment equals challenges we face”

3. There is a strong value proposition of Labs that practitioners can use when talking to funders, policy makers, and knowledge institutions: Participant responses emphasized the need for an intentional and strategic approach to showing the value of Labs to different stakeholders.

→ “Contribution’ is needed narrative”

→ “We will have examples and data on the impact of social innovation”

4. There are multiple pathways and entry points for becoming a Lab practitioner: This involves having Lab approaches be embedded in universities/ colleges to promote early exposure and support a talent pipeline, as well as other entry points that promote a multi-generational and diverse

Lab practitioner ‘workforce’. There was a desire for Lab leadership to be diverse and to have recruitment avenues that support this goal.

→ “Early exposure - embedded in knowledge institutions (i.e., universities)”

→ “What does the leadership of the Lab ecosystem look like? Diverse. Space is created in a way that is more equitable.”

5. Lab practitioners embody a particular critical and reflexive ethic: This involves strong understandings of community development principles, equity and social justice, the ability to work within complexity (tensions), emotional intelligence, and reflective capacity.

→ “We are the Lab. The Lab is with us.”

→ “Working with and animating tensions. Internal reflective capacity”

→ “A broader continuum of how we understand skills”

6. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is used in a supportive role: One group discussed the need to start thinking about the role of AI in social innovation that creates space for relationality (human interpreting) and supports efficiencies.

7. There is a vibrant and engaged network of Lab practitioners nationally and internationally: This network has mechanisms for sharing and capturing learning, finding mission alignment and synergies, and surfacing opportunities to share resources. An emphasis on opportunities for experiential learning was present in participant contributions. Participants also wondered if there could be mechanisms for facilitating partnerships that allowed for Labs to do ‘warm hand offs’ of work at different stages (e.g. one Lab is good at scaling and implementation so could have relationships with multiple other Labs that do the front end work and then pass projects to them).

→ “annual/regular national (international?) gatherings”

→ “Fellowships; Churchill fellowships - fellowships that allow for deep learning”

→ “At each stage of a Lab, we require a different skillset - how can we collectively work on parts of our Lab that we have expertise in and then have warm-hand offs”

COLLECTIVELY IMAGINING THE FOL: WORKING

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

What follows are the working conclusions and recommendations that emerged from the synthesis of what we heard from the (1) pre-gathering research (see FOL Primer), (2) the facilitated conversations at the gathering itself, and (3) insights, experiences, and sensemaking from convenors and advisors. While it’s still early in the process to build strong coherence, and realistically this cannot be achieved within a 1 ½ day gathering, we recognize the importance of being bold and offering some working conclusions and recommendations for next steps and opportunities. The work of field building is complex. What we offer now are promising early signals of next practices for the field.

As part of the gathering, participants were invited to dream about the FOL. Through a What if…? Board, people shared thoughts, hopes, dreams, questions and provocations.

These can be found in Appendix BWhat if the Future of Labs…?

A WORKING DEFINITION OF LABS

Working

Conclusions

and

Recommendations

from Conversation #1: Defining Labs

It became apparent when the upgraded definition of Labs was read out loud that it sounds a bit ridiculous and unapproachable. It is clear as deep practitioners we seem to be writing a definition for ourselves and not as much for incumbents, systems and communities to understand and support. What emerged was the need for multiple definitions to meet the needs of different audiences - a definition for practitioners that signals what a Lab is and isn’t and outlines some core attributes as well as an accessible and punchy definition for outsiders to Labs such as funders, policymakers, or interested community members.

Next, we propose two definitions of Labs that incorporate feedback from practitioners who participated in the pre-gathering survey as well as feedback from participants during the gathering. Remember, as we introduced at the start of this report, the definition might not be a perfect fit for your Lab or work. That said, we hope others will use this definition and contextualise it to better fit with their own unique theory of change, Lab context, etc. For a deeper dive into some of the tensions present in defining Labs check out p. 21 of The Primer.

Internal Definition for Lab Practitioners

Social Innovation Labs hold space for diverse change-makers to sense-make, generate, develop, and test a portfolio of promising solutions to address complex societal challenges in a way that is collaborative, experimental, iterative, and systemic.

Minimum Core Attributes of a Lab

→ Focused on complex societal challenges

→ Learns from diverse perspectives from across a system, including those with lived experience What new capabilities do we need?

→ Explores collaborative ways of working on a shared complex challenge

→ Systemic in thinking and action

→ Experimental in iteratively developing and testing possible solutions, ideally in real life and at a minimum in realistic settings

→ Aim at exploring root causes of complex challenges and then generating possible solutions and pathways from leverage points

Possible Lab Definition for Funders, Policy makers, or Community

A Social Innovation Lab has unique collaborative problem solving processes that help get to better solutions to a complex social challenge facing society.

What makes a lab approach unique and valuable:

→ In typical problem solving, a system might just ask for solutions that are economically viable. With that approach it will be hard to tell if you’re funding bandaid solutions at best or funding unintended harmful solutions at worst

→ What Labs aim to do is uproot assumptions through learning from diverse perspectives on a complex problem and asking what might help. Good Labs involve rigorous literature reviews, centering and learning from lived experience, searching out new perspectives on the problem and engaging creative ways of both looking at a problem and generating ideas to test out.

→ When trying to find innovations, most people and systems can’t really see in new ways because we’re too caught in patterns and habits from our past experiences. Labs can help to uncover fresh perspectives grounded in deep learning and historical contexts.

→ Labs don’t just talk about ideas around a table. They get people to show ideas in prototypes. This helps to see assumptions better and test ideas more thoroughly before investing in expensive roll outs. That is of big value.

→ The fresh insights, deep learning and framing of problems to be solved in a tough social or environmental challenge is part of the unique value.

One caution for funders and community is that you don’t usually want to use a lab approach if a community or system needs immediate large scale solutions to a wicked complex challenge. You might however in a short time period still be able to host a lab to co-create ideas, and scrappy prototypes that show hopes, needs, opportunities and promising pathways to explore further from a diverse community.

Possible Lab Definition for Funders, Policy makers, or Community

These definitions certainly do not need to be thought of as final or static. We hope they will continue to evolve as the field does. Next steps to strengthen these definitions might be to:

1. Test the definitions with the audiences they are intended for and integrate feedback.

2. Curate a set of tangible, easy to explain examples of Labs that point to what a strong Lab looks like in action and what impact and outcomes emerged.

3. Veteran Lab community members help write and share some think pieces on how a working definition of labs is connected to the unique types of labs highlighted in the primer and chart below.

e.g. Technical Challenge Labs, Service Design Labs, Policy Labs, Systems Change Labs, Place Based Labs, and Labs as Service.

Table 2. Comparison of

THE LAB ‘NICHE’: WHEN TO LAB AND WHEN NOT TO LAB

Working conclusions and recommendations from Conversation #2: Exploring our ‘niche’, situating Labs amongst other change approaches

The retooled working definitions, types of labs and features highlighted in the Primer and chart on the previous page should ideally connect to the unique ‘niche’ labs can play into the future of systems change. As we have said from the beginning of FOL, we don’t think labs are the answer or approach to work on every type of complex systems challenge. In systems change, there are times for grassroots community organizing, times for democratic community engagement, times for protest, times for letter writing, times for imagining better futures, times for speculative science fiction future imagining, times for circle, times for labs and times for lots of other approaches. Collectively, FOL didn’t quite land on a coherent agreement on a clear niche of labs within systems change. On the one hand this signals that Labs in Canada are still very much an emerging field with lots of room for experimentation, forming, storming and norming. That’s exciting. On the other hand, labs are out there already and have been for almost 20 years stewarding systems change and very creative service innovations, policies, and interventions that make a difference for people and the planet.

One very clear speciality of labs that came up in the niche conversation was how good labs are at strengthening relationships. This might suggest the niche is to help key representatives of a system(s) participating in a Lab to connect, empathize, and build strong relationships that become the foundation for systems innovation, transition and transformation.

When doing systems change, the niche of Labs question was essentially attempting some coherence around when to use a lab approach and when not to use one. From the rich conversation on the island, survey data and original Primer grounding, we offer some bold recommendations.

When it might be a good idea to convene a lab

→ When you have a system or collective who are tired of the status quo and desire creative, inclusive, collaborative ways of both looking at challenges and generating pathways forward. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have a willingness in a system or community to let a lab explore and experiment with reframing challenges and what core problems need to be solved. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have the possibility of all lab participants being willing to agree to some common principles of engagement. Principles where participants make space for treating everyone in the lab with respect, dignity and a willingness to be open to truly diverse perspectives- perspectives that might clash with one’s personal values and beliefs. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have the resources and time to do the often slower, relational trust building within a lab. If there is no trust built and simply transactional workshops, then it is unlikely a lab will get to the transformational insights, and creative ideas. If you have time for this, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have incumbents willing to not just fund, but engage appropriately in the lab learning journey. This helps for understanding when challenges to a system are reframed in labs in order to go beyond band-aid solutions. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have a system and/or community willing to explore and acknowledge the distinctions between long game transformational system change and bending or innovating within current systems to be better. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have a lab collective willing to both explore de-constructing power and systems and also willing to be bold to switch to generating alternative futures, bold co-created prototypes and new future possibilities. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have a system and lab collective willing to explore at the outset of a lab what is reasonable to expect from a lab and whether there are unspoken hopes for total paradigm shifts or more pragmatic service and system innovations. If you have that, then you might want to consider covening a lab

→ If you had national missions to tackle a few well defined and complex social challenges and an openness to invest in experimental problem solving where labs are one approach of many, then you might want to consider covening a lab or lab(s).

When it might NOT be a good idea to convene a lab

→ When you have an immediate, polarizing political issue that demands diverse community engagement, a clear strategy within a short time period and needs to fit cleanly at the end within existing systems. If you have that, then you might NOT want to consider covening a lab

→ When you have time, and resources, but an unwillingness in the lab collective to hold to common principles of engagement that supports dignity, respect, trust, and being in good relationship with each other. Or when participants want to use a lab to simply advocate for a rigid perspective without being open to others. If you have that, then you might NOT want to consider covening a lab

→ When a system or collective wants cool facilitation to come up with a traditional strategic plan for an organization. Strategy can be built better through many lab tools, but it’s not a social innovation lab if just wanting facilitation of a strategic plan. If you have that, then you might NOT want to consider covening a lab

→ When a lab stewardship team is not clear on the distinctions between critical social justice change making and generative design and social innovation approaches to change making. If you have that, then you might NOT want to consider covening a lab

Into the future of labs and their niche for certain types of systems change, there could certainly be more generative discussion around the topic. Perhaps exploring more around how labs might help with hospicing of systems, transition from one system to a new one, or as one delegate suggested, perhaps the niche of labs is to simply surface tensions in complex social and environmental challenges and then explore creative ways of how to navigate the uncovered tensions?

SHARPENING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT RESULTS

Working conclusions and recommendations from Conversation #3: What’s reasonable to expect from Labs?

Promote the capacity of Labs to generate multiple results

Labs are like ‘Swiss army knives’ able to increase citizen agency, strengthen community connections, develop, test, and (help) implement systemic innovations that have an impact on complex societal challenges. This ability to ‘multi-solve’ should be celebrated and multiple outcomes made clear in the design, funding, evaluation, and communication of Lab results.

Encourage variation, not one-size-fits-all, Lab approaches and results

While all Lab practitioners and initiatives appear to share a commitment to participatory, systemic, and experimental approaches, they vary in which types of change they seek to make because they address different challenges, operate from diverse orientations to change, and exist in unique contexts (e.g., cultural, institutions, geographic, etc.).

Be clear about the suitability of ‘scaling’ in each individual Lab

Lab stakeholders – including facilitators, participants, funders, and other stakeholders – should decide whether scaling is or is not a prominent feature of their Lab initiative after making sure that they’ve considered the strengths and limitations of scaling and not scaling.

Manage expectations about Lab results based on enabling conditions.

Labs do not operate in a vacuum. Their design, implementation, and results depend on a variety of enabling conditions (e.g., adequate funding, the complexity of the issue, participants involved). These conditions should be considered when (1) developing and funding Labs and (2) evaluating, reporting, and communicating the results so that Lab participants can operate with high ambitions for change and realistic expectations about what is likely and possible from any given Lab initiative.

For the Love of Labs

The usefulness of these insights can be strengthened by the creation of a series of short ‘briefs’ (entitled, “For the Love of Labs”) that aim to provide an accessible summary of key topics related to ‘Lab results’. In the spirit of ‘field building’, these briefs should reflect the current understanding of Lab practitioners and surface questions that the field should consider in this next iteration of the Lab movement.

→ Defining Results and Success in Labs - an elaboration of the original framing of outcomes developed for the CONVERGE event, with additional notes and examples from the FOL gathering, and key questions to consider for any Lab effort when deciding which type of results are most important to design for, track, and communicate.

→ Scaling Social Innovation: Some Key Elementsa summary of the different dimensions of scaling already regularly used by many Lab practitioners with links on where to go from more.

→ To Scale or Not To Scale: Here are Some Questionsa description of the strengths and limitations of Lab participants getting involved in scaling options, contexts in which scaling should be considered a central concern and/or when it's inappropriate, and key questions to consider for any Lab effort.

→ Enabling Conditions for Lab Results: A Checklistan accessible description of the enabling factors that shape the pace and scale of Lab results, offered in a checklist format, to help Lab participants - and those who support them - identify where they might want to improve the conditions for Lab success, as well as develop realistic expectations on what type of results to expect.

These resources can build on the initial ideas presented in the FOL Primer, upgraded by the discussions at the FOL gathering, and reviewed and adapted by a small working group as the field continues to evolve and we learn more about these topics.

These recommendations and resources will empower Lab stakeholders to develop and work with realistic expectations about the type, pace, and scale of Lab results, and use that understanding to improve the design, implementation, evaluation, and communication of Lab work.

THE FUTURE OF LAB PRACTICES

Working conclusions and recommendations from Conversation #4: Helpful Lab practices

FOL participants surfaced recommendations for practices, mindsets, skills, and capabilities needed to run highly effective Labs. These recommendations focus on scaling and enhancing value across community, participants, and incumbents/funders.

Recommendations for Scaling

→ Secure funding for scale

→ Develop leadership for scaling

→ Strengthen ecosystem awareness

→ Enhance foresight for scaling opportunities

Recommendations for Improved Value Add

Enhancing value to incumbents and funders

→ Deepen relationships with funders

→ Deliver strategic insights and solutions

Adding value to participants

→ Expand roles and pathways for engagement

→ Embrace equity and inclusivity in engagement

Adding value to community

→ Deepen community engagement

→ Focus on community-driven leadership and governance

→ Prioritize decolonization of Lab practices

For specific actions within each recommendations, generated by delegates, refer to page 40.

Recommendations for Scaling

The conversations revealed a shared vision for the future of Social Innovation Labs, characterised by several emerging practices:

→ Stronger Scaling Capabilities: Building the necessary skills and strategies to scale impactful solutions in collaboration with allied movements.

→ Deeper Value Propositions: Ensuring clearer value to incumbents, funders, participants, and communities, rooted in tangible benefits and shared outcomes.

→ Commitment to Decolonization: Fully integrating equitable, inclusive, and decolonized practices into every aspect of Lab work.

→ Enhanced Knowledge Mobilization: Continuously improving the ways knowledge is captured, shared, and mobilized to create lasting change.

These recommendations represent a collective call to action for Social Innovation Labs to evolve in ways that are more inclusive, effective, and impactful in driving systems change.

A THRIVING SOCIAL INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM

Working conclusions and recommendations from Conversation #5: What are the necessary conditions and supporting ecosystem for Social Innovation Labs to thrive in Canada

Articulating Labs’ value proposition

Labs lack public recognition, and therefore need to be thinking about how Labs are easily identified as an integral part of the mainstream innovation ecosystem. A more robust and coordinated marketing and value proposition strategy for Labs could not only support the placement of Labs as a visible and essential part of Canada’s broader innovation ecosystem and culture, but also facilitate talent recruitment and create new funding opportunities.

Expanding entry points into the Labs field

There is a need for the Labs community to look at different entry points for becoming a Lab practitioner, and developing strategies for cultivating a broader, inclusive talent pipeline. What are current entry points and what others do we want to exist?

Nurturing a national Lab network

There is interest in the continued nurturing of a national network of Lab practitioners that supports ongoing sharing of knowledge and resources. Multiple attempts at this have been made in the past and currently there are some splintered efforts activehow might we better unite these efforts towards this collective goal? Who would lead this work?

Ethic and values embodied by Lab practitioners

There is a need for the Lab community to collectively name and describe - whether through a manifesto or guiding principles - the ‘ethic’ or ‘posture’ of an exemplary Lab practitioner.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) policies and strategies

As AI becomes an ever-growing presence in our lives, there will be a need to develop policies and strategies that guide the use of AI in Labs.

WHERE TO NEXT?

There remains a strong energy and commitment in the field of labs, with deeply experienced and successful practitioners actively engaged in and invested in this work. Relationships among experienced Lab practitioners are stronger and more mature than pre-pandemic and there is an appetite to keep learning, grappling, connecting, sharing and supporting. Building on the discussions at FOL, below are some suggested pathways and possible next steps for field building into the future.

5 things we can do moving forward

1.Develop a manifesto or declaration on the role of innovation in the social change sector

Why?

Labs as we know play a niche role in systems change. It is unlikely that Canadians and the philanthropic sector really understand how important innovation is and the niche they can fill in positive change making. A manifesto or declaration curated by leaders in the sector could help galvanize and show how systems innovation and Labs are needed. In 2015 there was a similar strategy developed with a signed Social Research and Development Declaration. This contributed to advancing the adoption and visibility of social R&D in Canada and internationally. The McConnell Foundation and Social Innovation Generation began this work by issuing a number of important foundational reports that demonstrated why social purpose organizations need to invest in their capacity to experiment6.

Within this pathway, some proposed next steps include:

It’s unclear at present who might be able to steward this, perhaps Social Innovation Canada. There are some promising leads in this related work that would support the ecosystem of system change and social innovation as a whole in Canada. The Canadian Social Innovation Forum and proposed Institute for Society, Innovation and Policy is building an ecosystem and program activities around an updated vision of Canada’s innovation ecosystem.

2.Continue lab field building efforts

There is a vibrant and engaged network of Canadian Lab practitioners connected to a national learning ecosystem which is integrated with a robust global learning ecosystem. FOL discussions further highlighted the importance of intentional, continued efforts to strengthen the field of Social Innovation Labs. This work would benefit from dedicated stewards, potentially through an entity or collective, to help steward field building and foster knowledge sharing and practice amongst Social Innovation Labs practitioners.

There is strength in the network coming together -both on what we agree on and what we still want to explore. Although differences of opinion exist on certain elements, the spirit of the network is strong and exploring the spaces we still want to work on is important to further build and advance the field and our collective efforts.

Within this pathway, some proposed next steps include:

→ Seek dedicated funding for Social Innovation Labs and field building efforts

Social Innovation Labs face persistent challenges around limited resourcing, particularly funding. While related to the value proposition recommendation, there remains a need for dedicated funding to support both the field building and the operational work within the Social Innovation Labs ecosystem.

→ Develop ongoing learning artefacts

Establish and fund an annual "What we’re learning about Labs report" to capture and share insights. Curate case studies and examples of next practices in action around Labs. Engage thought leaders to produce think pieces on various practices, mindsets, and structures of Labs. These can provide a basis to then host future dialogues and gatherings.

→ Host more convenings

The FOL discussions, and past convenings like CONVERGE and CaNeoLabs, have surfaced the value of in-person gatherings for shared experiences, strengthening relationships and community within the field. There is a strong desire among practitioners for sustained engagement and opportunities for in-person engagement.

6 Highlights from this work, that practitioners building a manifesto might draw on can

→ Find funding for lab practitioner fellowships and learning exchanges There are often conversations among lab practitioners that the deepest learning among veteran Lab explorers came from visiting labs, spending time learning and exchanging ideas in context. For future field building and support of new and existing practitioners, developing a funded fellowship program would be rich in learning for the future of labs.

→ Create a website for dedicated lab information sharing Fund and develop a dedicated website to serve as a hub for the Future of Labs and Social Innovation Lab resources. This would be a platform to share blogs, clarity on the niche of labs, what Labs offer and highlight promising examples that show the benefit.

3. Test Lab value proposition with funders

Building on the insights from the FOL discussions, and definitions, we should initiate testing of clearer branding and communication that articulate what Labs are, where they help and their value with funders. The goal is to create messaging that resonates with funders, and communities and make Labs a more compelling investment. Assumed values to check might be…

→ Funders would see the value in convening a time bound lab around a complex challenge to ensure the right problems, framing and scope is being ideated around when solutions are desired from a diverse community or system. This helps mitigate risks of funding band-aid solutions, deeply biased solutions or worse - harmful interventions. A good Lab would also help gain input from diverse stakeholders (including centering those with lived experience).

→ Another assumed value that funders would invest in, is that a good Lab process within the right niche, helps to support co-design with community of solutions, strategies and pathways. This helps with support of equity, and mitigates the risk of typical engagement processes that might lean towards only hearing privileged people in a system.

4. Seek funding to support focused experimentation around future lab processes and methods

Why?

In addition to designing and stewarding Labs, practitioners are also often involved in researching, adapting, and developing methods for Labs. While Labs are not only about methods, continuing to develop the methods, tools, and processes we use are an important part of field development. There are methods grounded in indigenous ways of knowing, and future methods needed around system sensemaking, creative problem solving, co-creating, getting better at prototyping, evaluating, and even scaling while embracing complexity. There are also lots of very experimental methods that could be developed and explored with a fund like this. For instance, how an AI model could be trained to help a Lab team find root cause patterns to augment human sense making of a complex problem. Or an indigenous grounded lab that may want to create indigenous futurism ideation tools to help teams co-create new future visions grounded in indigenous worldviews. Developing an experiment fund to support the development of Lab methods could also help to connect lab practitioners on shared projects and help increase shared learning across the social innovation ecosystem.

Within this pathway, some proposed next steps include:

→ Convene a small group to set some parameters, principles, and what would come back to the community when an individual, collective, or lab group is funded to experiment and develop future lab methods.

→ Explore who might be able to host, and steward this fund on a yearly basis

→ Seek funding

5. Lean into a grounded national Missions approach

Explore, research, and develop a national Mission/ challenge(s) to help create coherence, and demonstrate the value of Labs in making progress on complex challenges. The Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation National Housing Solutions Lab was an early example that pointed to this promising approach. In the CMHC housing solutions labs, Labs across Canada were funded to explore and experiment with housing innovations. What might it take to thoughtfully create a few national Missions that utilize Labs as well as other change and innovation approaches?

Why?

Currently there are many great Labs across Canada working on unique complex challenges to particular cities, provinces, and diverse communities. Into the future, if funders and the Lab practitioner community decided to only work at small scales on neighborhood, city, or provincial levels of complex challenges unique to a community, then the deeper systemic shifts desired in our times may not be realized. On the other hand, if smaller scale relational Lab work is given up, for only working on national, or international interconnected complex Missions, then deep learning and unique needs of diverse communities could be ignored. It’s a tough tension and probably a both-and approach is required with learning loops between both small scale community Labs and national mission level Labs and social innovation initiatives.

One caution to consider when setting up national Missions comes from long time Social Innovation system leader in the UK Geoff Mulgan. In a recent article he shared about making a fresh and more mature case for Social Innovation in UK systems while also suggesting a national Missions approach cannot forget about the principle of doing-with citizens, not for.

The rhetoric of missions can sound like government just doing things to or for people not with them. And all of the missions will in practice depend on both technological and social innovation, since there are often no proven interventions just waiting to be put into practice. Instead governments, and society, have to explore and experiment, learning

by doing. Many MPs recognise this - and also understand that the politics works much better if the missions become tasks for the whole of society – mobilising social intelligence in all its forms – and not just a task for (hopefully) competent technocrats in Whitehall. They know that the old model - where government delivers and a grateful public thanks them - no longer works if it ever did."

7

The case against Missions will also be in the Canadian ecosystem. Currently there is a trend in labs and system transformation conversations to focus less on large scale system innovation and fade back to small scale, relational, place based changemaking. Part of this trend is grounded in equity and making sure small communities are not forgotten, but it is also likely connected to systems change leaders feeling overwhelmed by the daunting work of missions or big systems change. As Lab and systems leaders we need to be careful we don’t turn a cold shoulder to the deeply needed larger systems change because we weren’t bold enough, or feared we might leave a group out. There are thoughtful ways through those tensions.

Within this pathway, some proposed next steps include:

1. Connect and build on the research Social Innovation Canada is currently doing around what it might take to build a grounded national Missions set.

2. Convene a group to explore what needs to be considered when choosing what Missions to tackle

3. Support with building the case for grounded Missions

4. Explore the intersection between Living Labs, Social Innovation Labs and Missions at an international scale - where the synergies will help the Social Innovation Labs field grow its impact.

GRATITUDE AND CONCLUSION

We’re extremely grateful to our Labs community for the time, energy, resources, and perspectives they’ve contributed and continue to contribute to collectively imagining the FOL. FOL plays one part in the larger arc of field building. The intention of FOL was to start these conversations, but in no way finish them. We hope this report has left you with lots to think about and perhaps spurs you to take action on one of the many recommendations made.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES FROM THE ‘MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE’ EXERCISE

STORY TITLE:

TYPE OF LAB:

Shift Lab 2.0

QUESTION 1

WHAT IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT EMERGED OUT OF THAT LAB?

Build and pilot a regional ecosystem with multiple Labs to foster sustainable autonomy in our region

The emergence of powerful ideas (not necessarily big) FROM COMMUNITY that can create shock waves in a dominant system

The most significant change wasn’t the prototype - it was the group of us that came together and continued to carry and build that prototype.

I don’t know about other change because I can’t observe it. There is I guess change from the intervention but I don’t have metrics, I have stories.

You Need This Box Prototype to Pilot

Transforming Expectations of Funding

Lab-enabling Funding

Climate Justice Charter for Vancouver

Creating an intervention and becoming interventions ourselves.

Expectations behind fundingproduction mindset (conditioned response)

→ Took 20 projects to develop a new model to change accountability to new design.

More funding/Advisor to help

“it can fail!”

→ “Title” → Lab-enabling funding

Centering power of Lab in participants

QUESTION 2

WHY IS IT SIGNIFICANT TO YOU?

It addresses systemic transformations leading to a more resilient and sustainable territory

We saw “the promise of possibility” within each other and within the intervention/the process.

A different process leads to different results and if there are values we want to see in the work we have to start with them and design process rooted in those values

FREE SPACE FOR OTHER TYPES OF OUTCOMES, RESULTS, IMPACTS, AND CHANGES THAT COME TO MIND

Helps policymakers to reflect on the potential impacts of different disruptive technologies

We can build x-function teams that do deliver services that meet people's needs and improve

The creation of the prototype was the platform that built a connection between people who cared about making a difference.

→ Learning a lot as a team

→ Felt great to have a learning engine

→ Enabling others to do innovation

The way we show up is the “Lab” → we have to show up intentionally and rooted in the change we want to see (e.g. Unlearning dominant ways of being - perfectionism, conflict is bad, etc.)

What do we need to let go of?

→ A network

→ Allies emerged

→ Learning … in so many ways

The importance of theory of change came through

→ We replicate these power dynamics

→ Thought about it like a dinner host → set table and just see where the convo goes

Less sad public servants (an indicator of system change) and people wanting to join (gravity and momentum)

→ Thought leaders in public service reform and service delivery excellence are descending upon us

→ The funding process is shifting

→ Premier's office is calling

Newcomer Livelihood Lab

→ Demonstrate the work and communicate the need

→ Relationships and awareness of TRC

“I found my tribe” Newcomer women finding their support network to thrive in their settlement journey and be the author of their story

→ Institutionally helping them put money where their mouths are (modeling the why)

→ Change starts with relationships and understanding others' perspectives

Agric. Producers

Gov’t Ag

Canada/Researchers/ Academic

Housing infrastructure in New Brunswick/PEI

→ closing gap

→ newcomers entering trades fill vacancies

→ 100 day challenge

Impacts

- process

- relationships amongst actorsfarmers, academics

- Ag Can stopped after year 3 despite process beginning to show results useful for farmers

→ Establishing trust and positive shift in school culture

→ Not every sector is in same place

→ Why no progress in the trades sector around welcoming newcomers - settlement and employer divide

Short term funding

- no second phase

New methodology for participatory players which isn’t embedded in organizational culture - eg. risk taking

Changed thousands of lives and impacted youth employment at the system level

→ Labs will be more successful in the future

→ Readiness rubric for TRC

→ Timing/pace needs to be more aligned. Capacity building

→ Lifting up the leadership of newcomer women

→ Challenging the approach of service providers and centering newcomer women

→ Service providers reframing

→ Unlocking creativity for dreaming

→ Home/support network for newcomer women

→ Lottery process

NZP LL Net Zero Precincts Living Lab Academic

Just beginning but… - transition governance working group formation (informal)

Closing relational gaps (gaps in understanding each other) between decision-makers, policy, frontline, and users of a service

No one “owns” the Net Zero

Transition but as a Uni team we’ve shaped the beginning of a multi-actor task force type group

Empathy. Putting people into [illegible] perspectives and showing them how much they don’t understand

Making things more human and not about abstract concepts

Increased confidence in youth Increased capacity

Future visions

Unexpected

- slow on knowledge production (e.g. briefing papers)

- relying on Uni students to carry experiments

When people have time to think, their thinking expands

Labs

Public Sector

Developing the language and capacity to incorporate conversations with front line staff into problem solving

Energy Futures Lab

In-between

Financialization of Housing

1. Holding tension between transformation and shrinking change

2. Change in individuals and leaders

3. Lifting up Indigenous voices and spaces

4. working with nations ≠ agile

5. Labs have been willing to FAIL & ADAPT

6. Deep inner transformation

1. Increased understanding of FOH (community informed)

2. Serves as example of decolonial design process (ie. first session was about HOME (not housing); a guided meditation)

3. Home is about belonging so if we take a belonging based approach

The Hamilton Lab Hamilton Housing (CMHC)

Clarity on the challenge for affordable housing providers in financing their work

Some financial tools to fund their work

There is a set of tools that would be helpful for non-market housing providers

CMHC Housing Lab

Indigenous Housing

Share/relinquish power

Downloading responsibility, authority

Capacity resource constraints within very small Nations

No existing practice to include front line staff in the decisions that impact them

Small community stuck in a colonial model of health care (1 size fits all) This allowed the community to be hopeful and willing to experiment with something different

1. new narratives emerging 2. beginnings of cultural shift 3. zooming in on parts of the challenges

Rearticulation of the system of care in a way that puts lived experience at the center

When we move beyond problems/solution people can find each other - we’re all in this together; we’re all part of the problem and solution

1. Nation to [illegible] conversations are happening 2. Something is starting to shift

We have seen the tool work well in other places so we have hopeful examples ahead of that increases likelihood of success we increases non-mark social

Was about transformation, not solutions. Solutions require us to shrink the change but transformation may requires us to hold the problem in a broader way. Resist falling into the funder trap, create pockets of resistance to that

housing development

Work to build empathy with/for housing managers

Part of much bigger shift - 6 Nations, large geographic area -Lab inserted in this -connector, brought them together, big outcome in itself -hosting capacity; neutral

Columbia, 9 years, employment for former FARC Fighters

Changed purpose of ministry and the system → goals of the ministry have shifted Start - how many participate in course, how many finished Now - focus on employment retention

Permanent Basque Climate Assembly

Diverse political voices convening

Allows ministry to interpret data meaningfully

New goal represents dealing with underlying issues that had been ignored ex. Interventions to deal with guilt of that lived experience System more capable of reacting to the needs of the women Helped increase awareness of the levers that exist and build on the strengths and [illegible] of the system

Diverse political voices coming together in a space to connect, listen to one another and find common spaces for collaboration 82% of Basque parliament approved the law on climate change and energy transition

New capacities being built in communities that serve the users

Also facilitated transfer of best practices

Should Labs be involved in scaling? Or just document how?

Citizens [illegible] in public policy making on climate change

APPENDIX B - WHAT IF THE FUTURE OF LABS…?

Through a What if…? Board, people were invited to dream about the FOL –thoughts, hopes, dreams, questions and provocations. Contributions were grouped into related clusters and titled with an overarching question. Where similar ideas were shared, they were collapsed into one.

What if there was a greater investment into, and growth of, place based/living Labs in Canada?

What if…

→ case studies of place based Labs

→ local Lab methods were designed to learn from the land?

→ next 10 years there was a funding focus on place based Labs?

→ every neighborhood had a Lab?

→ newcomers (including many future climate refugees) were invited into local Labs to immediately contribute to designing the world?

→ schools, libraries, community centres, etc. were used as Lab spaces by communities

What if there was a strong International Lab network that enabled collaboration with, and support and recognition of, Canadian Labs practice?

What if…

→ we had international recognition for our work?

→ we had an international network of Lab supports?

→ we could partner with UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)?

→ SIX (Social Innovation Exchange) was better enabled to tie into and relay Canadian global aspirations?

→ we had excellent open global connections to be able to link emerging Labs globally on common shared topics?

→ there was a regular international gathering of Lab practitioners?

What if there was a strong national network of Lab practitioners that supported resource and expertise sharing?

What if…

→ organizations and Labs working on similar challenges could align on a shared vision for change/transformation?

→ we were able to spend time with other Labs for 2-3 months?

→ Labs can help other Labs set up in other places or regions?

→ we had a system where a call for help could summon a swarm of Lab experts to solve challenges together?

What if there was greater coherence or sharing of Lab theory(s) of change, both within the Labs community and more broadly?

What if…

→ we had more opportunities to share our theories of change and stress test each other’s models?

→ there was a theory of change for Labs we could use as a storytelling tool?

→ there was an increased understanding of how change happens (looking back and noticing, not just ‘new’)?

→ we could get a client a theory of change in one day?

Other

What if…

→ we had coherence around creating agency within Lab processes and used Labs to build citizen agency?

→ the domain of Labs is to move through tensions?

→ Labs/processes could change hearts, minds, and policies?

→ we could leverage big investments for additional projects?

→ we talked about benefits and co-benefits rather than impact, outcomes, outputs?

→ we weren’t so earnest? Labs that look for energetic attract?

→ this gathering started in the ocean?

→ red money for experimentation with having expectations of solving on short time scales?

APPENDIX CTENSIONS IN LAB WORK

As a final offering of the Primer, we highlighted some of the major tensions we see Lab practitioners needing to continue to surf into the future. Although the tensions are presented as polarities, our intention is not to create a false dichotomy or force the choosing of ‘either or’. Instead it is to spur ‘both/ and’ conversations, creating space for the surfacing and exploration of the ‘messy middle’. These tensions are emerging from literature, Convenor conversations, survey and focus group responses, and previous convenings of Lab practitioners (i.e., CONVERGE 2018). These tensions resurfaced in the discussions at the gathering and are likely to persist as we continue building the field. We invite you to reflect on the tensions highlighted and consider their possible implications for the FOL over the next 10 years.

TENSIONS IN LAB WORK

To what extent should Labs emphasise capacity building vs offering additional, external support to communities?

On the one hand…there is a push for Labs to build the capacity of community members to be able to use Lab tools and approaches on their own. Part of this is coming from a sense that Lab experts often don’t have the right relationships within particular communities to be able to steward a Lab exploration in a good way.

On the other hand…Some equity denied communities report that capacity building initiatives can feel burdensome, placing onerous demands on leaders who are already stretched thin trying to meet their communities’ basic needs. There is sometimes a desire for ‘outside’ help so long as it is offered in relational, genuine, and consent based ways. Also with capacity building approaches, it can be hard to support quality of practice. And finally, sometimes communities can hold strong biases which can generate short sighted solutions to complex challenges.

Possible implications for the Future of Labs in the next 10 years…

There is a general consensus among experienced Lab leaders, that leading quality Lab practices is not something anyone can just pick up in a short amount of time. In the future, might there be ways to both have expertise of Lab stewards and centre and work alongside community members in good relationship in those contexts?

Could there be new principles and investment in both the relational way of trust building with communities and recognition of the deep expertise required to help steward impactful Labs of the future?

Might there be a need for codifying practices, competencies, and creating min specs of what it takes to become decently adept to lead a good Lab process?

How are different perspectives valued in Lab processes (e.g. lived and living versus other system perspectives)?

On the one hand…social justice approaches emphasise the importance of centering lived and living experience in Lab processes. This can lead to some understanding of how a person’s lived and living experience is shaped by the system. However, if not done thoughtfully, it can also place unfair onus on the people experiencing marginalisation to generate solutions to their oppression.

On the other hand…a unique offering of Lab approaches is their incorporation of whole systems perspectives which include the lived experiences of people facing the challenge but also extend to other actors, organisations, policies, and institutions. This can lead to rich and nuanced understandings of the interconnectedness of someone’s experience to other influences within a...

Possible implications for the Future of Labs in the next 10 years…

Might we develop principles and practices that safeguard and equitably centre lived experiences in the right contexts and phases of Labs? How do we ensure equitable compensation for lived experience engagement and not just tokenistic recognition?

... system, can push other system actors to shift their perspective, and creates space for a revolutionary idea to come from anywhere in the system. One long time Lab leader has commented: “We have to be careful if ideological and one sided about lived experience as it could be akin to asking a person to identify causes of symptoms to an illness, create the cure, AND create the systemic delivery system to help all others with similar illnesses”

What if in the future we were able to increase recognition of the need for whole systems learning and not just privileging one system view over another?

What if Lab leaders got better at leading in relational ways and recognize how to involve lived experience perspectives in various phases of Labs?

What if we got better at navigating the paradox of needing both ‘on the ground’ perspectives and stories and bigger picture system shifts that are possible in the short term, medium term, and maybe down the road complete paradigm shifts?

What’s the more powerful lever for change, internal individual shifts (e.g. personal beliefs, attitudes, choices, actions) or more external system shifts (e.g. policy, institutional processes)? Or both...?

On the one hand…there is an increasing push in the last few years for the incorporation of inner systems change work such as spiritual, somatic, and embodied practices within Lab processes. These notions tend to place emphasis on the need for internal, individual change before external, systemic change is possible. This is often seen as a way to decolonize Lab practice and/or can come from a recognition that no one is outside a system they are trying to change. These ideas are often grounded in ancient and new traditions where there is an emphasis that if one focuses on inner transformation this may help influence those around one and eventually cause a cascade of systemic influence.

On the other hand…there is an understanding that for many pressing complex problems we face in the world, there are system change interventions at the policy and institutional levels needed. Often these changes are more removed from personal transformation experiences. In addition, bringing in diverse spiritual traditions and practices could be opening up a whole other set of challenges related to power, who has authority to share certain practices, privilege, and pushing spiritual practices in places where they may be better left in private lives than in group problem solving processes. Some of these practices may also require spiritual traditions and frameworks that Labs cannot safely claim to provide or experiment with.

Possible implications for the Future of Labs in the next 10 years…

How might we get better at recognizing both the value and risks of reflexive, reflective and contemplative practices to help spark awe, become aware of personal biases, preferences, attachments and aversions as we steward Labs?

How might we engage both the head and the heart in systems change work, while also being careful to not push personal spiritual, religious, or non-religious ideas on to others?

How might we ensure we don’t get too sucked into systems change work being “about us” and our personal work and at the same time not get too sucked into Labs and systems change work being about “changing others”? It’s likely a paradox. How might we engage thoughtful, creative provocations that in Lab practices jar various stakeholders to see and be open to new perspectives that aren’t simply based in logical reasoning, but in diverse ways of knowing and being?

Maybe Labs could consider 3 horizons of change making to recognize time scales of change, and distinctions of horizon 1, 2, and 3 interventions and needs at each scale?

Are Labs most about the process or the tangible outcomes? How do we get better at communicating the impact of Labs?

On the one hand…participants and leaders of Lab processes engage in rich and sometimes even transformational learning that has ripple effects in their relationships, workplaces, and communities long after a Lab has ended. These less tangible and harder to evaluate outcomes can be missed or devalued when the focus is all on prototypes.

On the other hand…Labs can be thought of as primarily about the tangible and more easily measured outcomes they produce - scalable prototypes - and their success in shifting systems and making a concrete impact on a stubborn challenge.

Possible implications for the Future of Labs in the next 10 years…

Can we get more coherent as a Lab community around the full range of intangible benefits of Labs, in a way that funders want to support and invest in?

Can we get clearer on what’s reasonable to expect from Labs and then be better at sharing that when leading Labs?

How important is it that Social Innovation Labs be established as an identifiable ‘field’ with operating principles and soft boundaries distinct from other social change approaches?

On the one hand…Lab practitioners could choose to establish social innovation as a ‘field’ distinct from other social change approaches with soft boundaries (that can be continuously challenged), shared language, and operating principles that foster coherence and ‘legitimization’.

On the other hand…collectively, Lab practitioners could choose to allow Lab approaches to continue to evolve with little coherence, shared language, boundaries, or operating principles. This provides endless freedom to remix, invent, and evolve approaches but can make it challenging for funders and ‘outsiders’ to the space to understand and value the work.

Possible implications for the Future of Labs in the next 10 years…

How might focussing on coherence over consensus be helpful as the ‘field’ of Labs evolves in the next 10years? What might this look like?

Might we invest in experimental approaches and practices of Labs and recognize we might not know where they end up?

Might we invest in loosely codifying what seems to be working and is promising and sharing those offerings?

What does a ‘do no harm’ approach look like in action?

On the one hand…Lab practitioners want practices, and principles that avoid perpetuating systemic harm. This is well intended and aims to recognize and have mechanisms to consider unintended consequences of a change introduced in a system. If Labs, stewards, and leaders are too cavalier with proposed solutions to complex problems, more harm than good could be introduced in a system.

On the other hand…It is near utopian to think a collective could mitigate all potential harms. The meaning of ‘do no harm’ can be understood as more nuanced - recognizing there are risks to all actions, including the choice to take no action. What if in seeking to ‘do no harm’ Lab practitioners embraced the paradox of having to both be bold and take action whilst acting with humility and careful consideration of unintended harms?

Possible implications for the Future of Labs in the next 10 years…

Striving to ‘do no harm’ is important but what might it look like in action in Labs? Might there be principles that help with evaluating risks at individual, community, and larger system levels?

How do we keep in mind that what is perceived as harmful is constantly changing? Things we think are helpful and will not harm today, 100 years from now, it is likely our descendants will see the harms we caused and cannot see at present. This is part of the human condition.

How might we practise with transparencyacknowledging it is not possible to mitigate all possible systemic harms in Lab work?

APPENDIX D - WHAT ARE THE LAB TYPES AND CONTEXTS?

Taken from the FOL Primer Report.

Are there different types of Labs that fit under the general definition?

Due to the diffuse origins of Labs, diverse backgrounds of Lab founders, and variety of complex challenges they apply to, there is not one single model that all Social Innovation Labs follow. One way to make sense of the variety of Labs is to consider the type of challenge they are designed to address (technical, social or systemic), and where they are situated (government, mediator or community).

Technical challenges involve deep subject matter expertise, and often require product innovation. Social challenges involve lived experience of underserved communities, and often require service innovation. Systemic challenges involve cross-sector multistakeholder engagement, and often require policy and system change. In practice, Labs may span these categories to address entangled technical, social and systemic challenges.

Labs can be situated inside government to improve citizen engagement, cross-department innovation and experimentation. Labs can be stewarded by mediator organisations, including universities, not for profits, and consultancies as knowledgeable, neutral third parties. They can also be situated within communities in grassroots not for profits, co-ops and social enterprises to amplify and organise community solutions. In practice, government and community Labs often make use of third-party mediators to augment their Lab team.

Technical Challenge Labs

This type of Lab context focuses on solving a complex socio-technical challenge. This requires weaving deep expertise of a scientific, technical or financial nature with the social dimensions of the challenge.

For example: Montréal in Common is a community of 36 project owners and partners working together with the city of Montreal to develop, test and deploy solutions to mobility and food issues, using the city as a laboratory. Their portfolio of 13 experimental projects are contributing to the ecological transition and promote social inclusion through the use of data. In 2019, they won the $50m Infrastructure Canada smart cities challenge to deploy data-driven technologies to reduce automobile usage, while also using innovative governance and citizen engagement models to ensure responsible and trusted data sharing.

Technical challenge Labs require a convening team that understands both the technical content of the domain as well as the methods of human-centred design and multi-stakeholder facilitation. A key requirement is the capacity to weave together the contributions of technical subject matter experts with the lived experience of users and citizens. Technical Challenge Labs are well suited to the intersection of technology and society in areas such as smart cities, cleantech, fintech, and healthtech.

Examples include:

→ Laboratoire d’innovation urbaine de Montreal montreal.ca/unites/laboratoire-de-linnovation-urbainede-montreal

→ DUCA Impact Lab ducaimpactlab.com/escalator/

→ Social Innovation Canada’s Financialization and Housing Lab sicanada.org/program/financialization-and-housing/

Figure 2. Types of Social Innovation Labs based on the type of challenge they are designed to address and where they are situated.

Service Design Labs

This type of Lab context involves re-imagining the services of governments, business, or non-profits. Service Design Labs focus on improving the end-toend customer or citizen experience (CX), and convene stakeholders from across the customer journey.

For example: UHN OpenLab is a design and innovation shop dedicated to finding creative solutions that transform the way health care is delivered and experienced. OpenLab has used service design to redesign discharge for spinal cord injury patients during the transition from hospital to home. Another example, the OpenLab publication From Patients Who Know: A Hospital Handbook is a “travel guide” for hospitals written from the perspective of over 25 Canadian seniors with hospital stay experience. The guide exemplifies what truly patient-centred care looks like.

Service Design Labs require a convening team with experience applying service design in complex environments where many stakeholders touch the user experience; and where services need to be designed as human rights accessible to all, not just those segments who can afford them. Service Design Labs may go beyond existing services to designing completely new services for systems that don’t yet exist. This draws on experiential futures, speculative design and worldbuilding techniques. A key challenge and imperative for Service Design Labs is developing valid and objective metrics for subjective and personal customer experiences. In some governments (ie. BC public service) and public sector organisations service design as a practice has become accepted and embedded in decentralised innovations teams and as such moved out of the more experimental (centralised) Lab spaces.

In Canada, Service Design Labs have found most traction in the health sector, although they have applicability to all complex services.

Examples include:

→ CityStudio Vancouver citystudiovancouver.com/

→ UHN OpenLab www.uhn.ca/corporate/AboutUHN/General_Services/ OpenLab

→ AHS Design Lab www.albertahealthservices.ca/about/Page13721.aspx

→ Emily Carr Health Design Lab research.ecuad.ca/healthdesignlab/

→ IRCC Pier SIX dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1068&context=learnxdesign

→ City of Austin Office of Design and Deliver wewereodd.com/

→ Pulse Data Labs, Indonesia pulselabjakarta.org/

→ The Care Lab, Spain www.thecarelab.org/

→ Service Design Lab, Singapore www.servicedesignlab.net/

Policy Labs

This type of Lab context is housed within (or on the edge of) a particular order of government (or intergovernmental organisation) and focuses on innovating the policy development process, through citizen-centred multi-stakeholder engagements, systems thinking, design, strategic foresight, ethnography, behavioural insights and Indigenous epistemologies.

For example: The ESDC Innovation Lab (Employment and Social Development Canada) was established in 2015 with the launch of a dedicated collaboration space and a team of designers and behavioural scientists. Their full-design projects are year-long and focus on a departmental priority, such as increasing uptake of the Canada Learning Bond among low income families. They work with the client Branch to frame the problem and design the approach. They meet with Canadians across the country to build empathy and understanding, then co-design solutions and nudges to shift behaviours and systems towards the desired future state. Their approach is based on deep and rigorous research, and because they work from within government they have access to policy levers to affect systems change.

Policy Labs require a convening team that understands both innovation methodologies and the mechanics of government and the policymaking process. They co-design new policies, strategies, regulations, bylaws, grants and contributions. Policies have wide-reaching direct and indirect effects, so citizen and stakeholder engagement is critical in Policy Labs. Policy Labs can be focused on a singular complex challenge – such as a major transition in public policy – but often act as in-house centres of expertise that consult with internal government clients leading a variety of transformation and innovation initiatives.

Examples include:

→ ESDC Innovation Lab t.co/LVL37bTWd2

→ NS GovLab novascotia.ca/govlab/

→ UNDP Accelerator Labs www.undp.org/acceleratorlabs

→ Policy Lab UK openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/

→ Boston Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics, US www.boston.gov/departments/new-urban-mechanics

→ Mindlab Denmark (the original policy innovation lab) apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/how-denmark-lostits-mindlab-the-inside-story

Systems Change Labs

This type of Lab context convenes stakeholders from across sectors and across systems to address a complex and systemic challenge at the roots. As the most ambitious type of Lab, it aspires to enduring systems change on a challenge that appears stuck and entangled with other challenges. Systems Change Labs involve multi-year commitment, deep systems sensing, whole system engagement, a dynamic prototype portfolio, and sophisticated scaling pathways.

For example: The Energy Futures Lab was launched in 2015 by The Natural Step with initial support from Suncor Energy Foundation, Pembina Institute and the Government of Alberta, along with a growing list of funding and convening partners. For over nine years,

the Lab has convened its Fellows, representing dozens of diverse perspectives from across the energy system, to accelerate the transition to the energy system the future requires of us. The Energy Futures Lab combines social innovation practices, diverse perspectives, backcasting, systems thinking, and experimentation to incubate, accelerate and spin out energy innovation initiatives aligned with five key innovation challenges identified by the Lab.

In facing the wicked complexity in these types of Labs, leaders can be critiqued for inaccessible concepts that fail to resonate in communities. Some can also surprisingly centre a marginalised community too much and overburden an already oppressed community that deeply wants some help to relieve the pain of a systemic challenge they’re facing, not additional engagement.

Systems Change Labs require a convening team with patience and commitment to long term change, deep understanding of the system of interest, and an ability to create safe spaces to address polarisation among actors and interest groups in the system. Systems Change Labs cannot stick to a repeatable methodology; they draw on a wide repertoire of innovation methods that constantly evolves as the Lab matures.

Systems Change Labs are most successful when they anticipate a future crisis and then build the knowledge, networks and experimental solutions needed to navigate the crisis and transition to a better future.

Examples include:

→ Engineering Change Lab engineeringchangelab.ca/

→ LICER - Civic and Regulatory Innovation Lab. www.mis.quebec/en/completed-projects/2020/10/26/ licer-civic-regulatory-innovation-laboratory/

→ Energy Futures Lab energyfutureslab.com/

→ Early Childhood Education Lab www.ecelaboepe.ca/

→ Edmonton Shift Lab www.edmontonshiftlab.ca/

→ Future of Home Lab www.actionlab.ca/our-work/the-future-of-homeinclusive-housing-solutions-lab

→ Bhutanese Refugee Employment Lab www.actionlab.ca/our-work/design-by-doing-1-point0-and-2-point-0

→ The Doughnut Economics Action Lab, UK doughnuteconomics.org/about

→ Arantzazulab, Spain arantzazulab.eus/en/

Place-Based Labs

This type of Lab context is centred on and embedded in a particular live/work/play community to address local systemic challenges that matter to people who share physical and/or virtual places. Being in and of community, these Labs avoid the more technical Labs jargon and methods while adhering to the spirit and principles of Social Innovation Labs, including codesign and co-production. Trust and legitimacy are critical for Place-Based Labs.

For example: The Winnipeg Boldness Project launched in 2014 is an Indigenous-led, Place-Based Lab grounded in Indigenous worldviews and social innovation to research and develop ideas, in order to improve outcomes for young children in the Point Douglas community in Winnipeg, Manitoba. They weave traditional Indigenous knowledge and reconciliation with social innovation, including Indigenous ceremony, sage picking, and wholistic ways of knowing, being, doing and feeling. The work is stewarded by four guide groups comprised of local residents, volunteers, workers, executives, researchers, and knowledge keepers. Prototypes are community-led and community-validated.

Place-Based Labs require a convening team that are trusted members of the community they support. Place-Based Labs rely on volunteer community participation, so they need to be flexible in when and how often they meet, connect with community on an emotional level, and move at the speed of trust. Specialised embedded social innovation supports, such as research, graphic design and prototype development are especially valuable for community Labs.

Scoping of challenges in these types of Labs can vary from focus on something very specific to a street or a neighbourhood, to something very big and complex that has intersections and lived experience in a neighbourhood but requires deeper and wider systems change. Just as community is defined in many different ways beyond geography, Place-Based Labs can also be organised around a shared sport, online community, or way of living. What differentiates Place-Based Labs is the centring of a defined community in determining the Lab’s vision and direction.

Examples include:

→ Winnipeg Boldness Project www.winnipegboldness.ca/

→ Acadie Lab - Agroenvironment living Lab www.mis.quebec/en/completed-projects/2019/08/29/ acadielab/

→ Edmonton RECOVER project www.urbanwellnessedmonton.com/

→ Future of Hockey Lab www.futureofhockeylab.com/

→ Daegu Living Lab, South Korea zenodo.org/record/1434936/files/15_Daegu%20 Living%20Labs.pdf

Labs as a Service

This type of Lab context is for Labs that steward a diverse portfolio of Social Innovation Labs as a knowledgeable, neutral mediator. It also includes consultancies that offer third party Lab design, convening and capacity building services.

For example: Skills Society Action Lab has led multiple Labs and Lab-like convenings since the mid-2000s to foster more creative thinking and innovation in human service systems. In the past five years, Action Lab has launched the Edmonton Shift Lab to address racism; the Future of Home: Inclusive Housing Solutions Lab; and the Bhutanese Refugee Employment Lab. Action Lab extensively documents and publishes their learnings and evaluations. They have a customdesigned Lab space that encourages creativity and collaboration in their own Labs and shared with the

community. And they have a team and partner network of Social Innovation Lab professionals.

One challenge these types of Labs can often face is whether it’s appropriate in certain contexts to have outside Lab experts steward or facilitate a process with a particular organisation, community or group. In recent years, one answer to this challenge is for these types of Labs to build capacity in a community or organisation to lead and adapt a Lab process themselves. This has a whole other set of challenges in that it can take considerable time and resources to achieve the necessary quality of Lab practice.

Labs as a service requires a convening team with a mastery of labcraft, able to select and tailor the right approach for a uniquely complex challenge from among multiple methodologies and tools. They need a reflective practice grounded in a wide repertoire of Lab experience; an appropriate balance of confidence and humility; and operational experience in scoping out Lab initiatives. Labs as a service are most impactful when they form transparent, equitable and regenerative partnerships with the governments and communities they serve.

Examples include:

→ Social Innovation Canada sicanada.org/

→ LLI llio.quebec/

→ Action Lab www.actionlab.ca/

→ NouLab ponddeshpande.ca/noulab/

→ Reos Partners reospartners.com/

→ Health Commons Solutions Lab www.healthcommons.ca/

→ Synthetikos www.synthetikos.com/

→ ShiftFlow www.shiftflow.ca/

→ Kennisland www.kennisland.nl

→ The Australian Centre for Social Innovation (TACSI) www.tacsi.org.au/

"Eagles and cheese"