Conclusion and recommendations

“Fellows had many ideas. As they were not the one directly communicating with FEHD, we (organizers) were doing it, we had a wider perspective, and understand more about the concern of FEHD. There was tension when what fellows wanted to do bothered the FEHD… and we wanted to innovate…but we also wanted to build trust with the government. We shouldn’t just want to innovate and not care about them (FEHD). That’s why it was hard for us to avoid telling the fellows, ‘how about this time we first consider their view…this meant ‘ couldn’t make it’ to them (lab fellows). This kind of tension happened.” (Lab organizer D, individual interview)

Tension also prevailed between the lab organizers and the lab fellows, amidst different expectations they had on policy impact of the Market Lab. “Our team (organizers) also had what we thought as right, while fellows happily doing things they thought as right (laugh)…these were the conflicts…we (organizers) wanted the prototypes to have influence at the policy level. Sometimes…we hoped after the prototypes were done, they were not one-off, but the government could adopt, and then maybe sustain in other markets, or finding other people to do it in this market…Sometimes we wanted to do something that created big impact, but fellows might not get that. ” (Lab organizer D, individual interview)

Different lab organizers positioned their role differently in handling these tensions, across a spectrum between mentorship and partnership. “There were different thoughts in the (organizers) team… A thought that she was a member in the lab team… she spoke her opinions as a lab member. It was up to the lab fellows to accept or not. She was the most liberal… I am prone to the liberal side of the spectrum, but I would evaluate what could give social lab the greatest impact… I also wanted to convince them (lab fellows) this was very important… For B, I think she was prone to the other side of the spectrum. ” (Lab organizer C, individual interview)

In partnership, the lab organizers regarded themselves as equal members in the lab team, sharing equal power and rights in decision making as the lab fellows. In mentorship, the lab organizers took up the role of a coach to guide and influence the lab fellows towards a designated direction. Whilst none of the lab organizers we interviewed was comfortable with theroleofadirectiveleader,they wereconstantlystrugglingtofindarightplaceforthemselves between partnership and mentorship in their relationship with the lab fellows.

As exemplified in the Market Lab, the Social Lab project has successfully assembled a group of social-minded young people and prepared them to be better change makers. A cohesive team of like-minded people sustained their motivation to act, amidst the incessant institutional constraints that frustrated them. Immersion in the site enabled the young lab fellows to understand the operation of market service, so as to obtain insights for change within the service system. Deep-dive in the community exposed them to the different life stories of multiple stakeholders of market service, which stimulated their respect for the complexity of human experience, and engendered a humble attitude in claiming knowledge about other

people. Such humility is helpful for developing empathetic understanding by enabling productive conversations across differences. Using the guiding principles and structured procedure that the Social Lab model provided and informed by international experiences, young people in the Market Lab obtained insights for formulating vision of change in tackling community issues and solving social problems. Witnessing small changes in the community and among community members also supported their confidence in locating room for change within theservicesystem. Ofcourse, changehas neverbeen an easy achievement in rule-driven bureaucracy. Amidst all the institutional constraints that the lab fellows encountered in prototype testing, they were not sure of their ability to effect actual changes for social improvement. The Market Lab process did not manage to enhance their subjective sense of competence as a change maker. However, they have become more receptive to differences and prepared for possible frustration in continual change-making efforts, and came to realize the importance of small moves before big changes could be achieved. Invariably, the Market Lab has provided a platform for nurturing change makers, and has been a learning ground for the young change makers to gather knowledge about the service system and garner insights for plausible changes within the system.

The lab organizers played a very important, and yet difficult role as facilitators of the social lab process to nurture change makers through a collaborative learning process. In the course of the Market Lab, the lab organizers have been working hard to strike the sensitive balance between intuition and logical induction in ideating for change solutions. The interplay between logical induction and intuition in producing innovative ideas for change has been a subject of discussion in the focus groups and individual interviews. Being built up from latent experiences, instincts and senses, intuition is not antithetical to logic. How intuition and the inductive logic can complement each other in the Social Lab process is an area for further interrogation. The lab organizers also had constant struggle in mediating between different expectations of multiple stakeholders in the Market Lab, and in finding the right place between mentorship and partnership in their relationship with the lab fellows. There is no simple answer on how to sort out these dilemmas in playing out their facilitator role. The answerlies in a team of reflexive facilitators who are sensitive to their struggles and bewilderment, able to share their doubts and fears, and have the courage to challenge their own values and assumptions in creating a conducive environment for supporting change-making in future Social Labs.

Set out to introduce change within the public service system, the Social Lab project has deliberately enlisted the participation of community organizations and civil servants from relevant government departments to obtain their buy-in for bottom-up community engagement and the experimentation approach in finding new solutions to old problems. Whilst lab fellows from government offices unanimously endorsed the principle of community engagement in public policy making, the Market Lab process has demonstrated to them that active participation and constructive negotiation could work to produce unexpected changes in the system. However, they remained ambivalent about the practicability of this bottom-up approach in terms of its “cost-effectiveness”. Meanwhile, the community partners did not play an active role in the Market Lab, apart from serving as resource and contact persons to liaise with community members. They expressed that they were inspired by the conscientious lab fellows and the Social Lab model, and appreciated the opportunity for networking with other community organizations through the Market Lab process. It remains to be seen if the exposure can instigate related action plan in community level.

Concluding from the evaluation findings, we suggest the lab organizers to build on the merits they have achieved and consider the followings in future Social Lab projects.