{"id":2843131,"date":"2024-06-12T06:10:03","date_gmt":"2024-06-12T11:10:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2024-09-03T03:10:22","modified_gmt":"2024-09-03T08:10:22","slug":"sustainability-of-policy-labs-three-key-principles-to-consider","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/sustainability-of-policy-labs-three-key-principles-to-consider\/","title":{"rendered":"Sustainability of policy labs: three key principles to consider"},"content":{"rendered":"

This blog is part of a webinar series, which shares lessons from OTT\u2019s work as part of a\u00a0project providing technical advisory support to EdLabs work to strengthen evidence use in education policy<\/a>\u00a0funded by the Jacobs Foundation. In collaboration with four EdLabs in C\u00f4te d\u2019Ivoire, Ghana, Switzerland, and Colombia,\u00a0 Jacobs Foundation is working on enhancing evidence use in education policy and practice. This blog series features analysis and commentary from both OTT internal and external experts.<\/em><\/p>\n

Have you noticed the \u2018labification\u2019 of the policy field? Our research<\/a> highlights the proliferation of new policy labs, delivery units and other related entities over the last 15 years.<\/p>\n

But as fast as new labs are formed, others are dying. See this compelling illustration from the Institute for Government\u2019s 2017 report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/p>\n

Maybe this isn\u2019t a bad thing. The authors of \u2018Life Cycles of Public Innovation Labs<\/a>\u2019 view the death of labs as an opportunity for \u2018rebirth\u2019, taking on new\/different forms. They argue that the mentorship and learning involved in their development are valuable and part of its legacy.<\/p>\n

But it does raise the question of sustainability for policy labs. Of course, sustainability can mean many different things for them, including their structures disappearing.<\/p>\n

Last month, OTT hosted a webinar to explore concepts of sustainability for a group of education policy labs (EdLabs) that aim to strengthen evidence use<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Throughout this article we share insights from the webinar<\/a>, in which Ria Collingwood-Boafo talks about managing a technical cooperation grant between the Inter-American Development Bank and Trinidad and Tobago\u2019s Ministry of Education. +<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We use the terms \u2018labs\u2019 and \u2018units\u2019 interchangeably in this piece. We also refer to the full spectrum of units \u2013 from those embedded within a government agency to those independently run. +<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s important to note that our research has not found that any of the above models are inherently more sustainable than others. However, as Ria\u2019s presentation reminded us, focusing on the sustainability of the work (outputs and outcomes) of the labs can validate or support the structure.<\/p>\n

In this article, we share three key principles and helpful tools that have emerged from our work to support policy labs in thinking about and planning for sustainability: demand, relationships, and human and financial resources.<\/p>\n

Do you wish to receive more insights like this straight to your inbox? Subscribe to our newsletter<\/a><\/p>\n

1. Demand<\/h1>\n

Demand is an important principle because it provides the foundation for ownership. And ownership is a critical element of sustainability \u2013 especially for externally funded units.<\/p>\n

As the experiences from Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) show<\/a>, aligning with existing government structures and priorities can strengthen the demand for and uptake of the products and services offered by the labs.+<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

However, demand exists at different levels, and sometimes there are competing interests \u2013 for instance, a minister may want a lab but the civil servants may see it as a threat to their existing work.<\/p>\n

Identifying and maintaining the right high-level political champion(s) is important groundwork for lab sustainability. As the IfG notes<\/a>: \u201cCivil servants are very attuned to whether you have the ear of the Prime Minister\u2026 As soon as people suspect that you don\u2019t, then it\u2019s over. It doesn\u2019t matter how skilled and capable you are.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Ria<\/p>\n

Pictured: Ria Collingwood-Boafo (far right) and members of her team with Dr Lovell Francis (centre). +<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Demand is also changeable. Our report<\/a> found that labs often feel like they are walking a political tightrope: they don\u2019t want to associate themselves too closely with any one political agenda, but they also need to maintain their relevance and build trust with political players to be able to inform policy decisions.<\/p>\n

One practical tool to assess demand is the Triple A<\/a> assessment, using a Problem-Driven Iterative Adaptation (PDIA) approach. This can be used to differentiate between buy-in from high-level \u2018authorisers\u2019 and the acceptance of those who will be implementing the lab.<\/p>\n

A cautionary word came from one interview we conducted: despite being entirely government-funded and government-run, a lab had to assert its legitimacy within the government because it was perceived as being an external\/donor-led initiative purely because of the strong influence of donors in similar efforts in the country.<\/p>\n

Last but not least, demand changes over time as government administrations change. One way of navigating this is to think about relevance. As Ria advised \u2013 drawing on her experience of working with two ministers \u2013 establish and maintain relevance by adopting a proactive stance and responding to changing needs, while staying rooted in purpose.<\/p>\n

2. Relationships<\/h1>\n

Relationships featured in everything we heard and read about the sustainability of labs. Key relationships are both internal and external:<\/p>\n