An independent research team that studies how technologies meet real people - and turns that reading into evidence institutions and innovators can act on. Based in Delft, working across Europe and in the places our cases come from.
The Lab is engaged where a decision cannot be settled from a desk. Where the evidence a client actually needs sits with the household, the rider, the ranger, the mechanic, the vendor, the operator - and where getting the answer right matters enough to send someone properly trained to ask.
Field evidence for a decision. Independent research designed to answer one question well, in the setting the technology or programme actually meets. See Entering a new context.
Measurement of change. What actually changes, for whom, and through what pathway. Reach, depth and experience - measured from the human side first. See Measuring change.
Reporting to funders. Monitoring, evaluation and dissemination as one connected system. Independent, set up at the start, closed with proof, including for European Grant Agreements. See Reporting to funders.
Cross-cutting all three: a defensible reading of the socio-technical system, using the frameworks the Lab publishes and maintains - the BRW framework, the TRL and SRL scales, the Evidence Strength Pyramid.
We favour depth where the question rewards depth, and count carefully where the population supports counting. Standard tools in every engagement:
Every engagement carries pre-tested instruments, cognitive checks in the local language(s), safeguarding protocols with named accountability, and a back-check regime on ~10% of collected data before it is trusted.
See how the mix plays out in practice on Field Research and on the Impact Measurement framework page.
Six live programmes, each anchored to specific evidence questions rather than a sector logo:
See the full programme index at Programmes, and the reading behind each at Articles.
Public-facing cases the Lab's partners have agreed to publish. The commissioned portfolio behind them is substantially larger and delivered privately.
Independence. No commission edits a finding. The reader hears what the Lab heard, including the counter-evidence. Independence is stated in writing at the start of every engagement and honoured at endline.
Local capacity, not visiting expertise. Fieldwork is led by researchers and partners who already speak the language and know the place. The Lab's central team designs, trains, supervises and reports; the reach is the network's, and the accountability sits with named people in every site.
Ethics that hold in practice. Informed consent recorded and revocable. Sensitive-data handling documented and audited. Safeguarding protocols with named contact and escalation paths, appropriate to the setting. Data-protection posture consistent with GDPR where applicable and with each site's local framework.
Evidence packaged for the reader who will act on it. A funder brief, a board memo, a peer-reviewable methodological annex - the Lab writes to the person who needs to move next, not to the discipline it comes from. Deliverables named at engagement start, not negotiated at endline.
Three engagement types, sized to the decision the work is meant to inform.
Scoping engagement (2 to 6 weeks). A first read of a market, technology or region, before scaling capital is committed. Delivered as an independent context brief with the specific questions a fuller engagement would settle. Fit for teams entering a new geography or considering a new product line.
Full engagement (3 to 9 months). A commissioned study designed around one primary question, with mixed-method fieldwork, an interim readout, and a closed-out finding at endline. Fit for the decision to launch, to invest, to change the design of an existing programme, or to demonstrate impact to a funder or board.
Standing partnership (12+ months). A repeat-measurement panel, a rolling context brief across a portfolio, or an evidence function operating alongside a partner's own team. Fit for organisations who need evidence to arrive at the same cadence their decisions do.
Every engagement is agreed in writing before it begins, with independence, deliverables, timelines and safeguarding commitments named at the start.
Where a programme runs its own standing consultant pool, the Lab is set up to plug in against several of the skill areas that pools of this kind typically require. Placement on a roster is registered as an availability, not as a promise of a specific engagement.
Impact measurement and evidence generation. Monitoring and evaluation design, in-field data collection tools tracking utilisation and outcomes, and pilot evidence packages sized for investor, donor and policy readers. This is the before-and-after measurement offer at the centre of Measuring change.
Financial systems and investor readiness. Unit-economics modelling and tracking for pay-as-you-go revenue and asset-financed adoption, with rider-side and household-side evidence to check the model against. The Roam case study is a live proof point.
Market access and adoption. Adoption-barrier reading, default-risk indicators, and customer-feedback loops set up to reach the population the market is meant to serve rather than only the population already reached. The MiMaji case study and Entering a new context sit here.
Behavioural and design research. Ethnographic and qualitative work on practice, preference and decision-making in the household, at the point of use. The Pyropower case study shows the method on a smallholder kiln; the interview guide sets out the discipline.
Roster engagements typically run 8 to 15 hours a week and close with handover-ready outputs. The Lab is available as an individual researcher lead, as a small team, or as a contracted delivery unit for a defined scope. Proposals covering two or more of the skill areas above are the usual configuration; single-area engagements are welcome too.
Send a short note about the decision you are weighing and who the answer needs to come from. We come back with an approach, a timeline, and an honest view of what evidence can and cannot settle.
The Lab is an independent research team, not an advocacy organisation. We do not campaign, endorse products, or accept commissions where a finding is expected in advance. Where a partner's own theory of change is what needs testing, that is a legitimate engagement, and the Lab tests it honestly.
If this reads close to a decision you are weighing, we would like to hear about it. A short note is enough to start.
The Lab is an independent research team, not an advocacy organisation. We do not campaign, endorse products, or accept commissions where a finding is expected in advance. Where a partner's own theory of change is what needs testing, that is a legitimate engagement, and the Lab tests it honestly.